Madras High Court
C.Karuppaiah vs S.Thangadurai ... 1St on 1 April, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
WA(MD). No.822 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 01/04/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
WA(MD). No.822 of 2025
and CMP(MD) No.5450 of 2025
C.Karuppaiah ... Appellant
Vs
1.S.Thangadurai ... 1st respondent/Writ
Petitioner
2.The District Collector
O/o.District Collector
Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Officer Office,
District Collector Office Campus
Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer Office
Usilampatti, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.The Tahsildar
Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
WA(MD). No.822 of 2025
6.The Tahsildar
Usilampatti Taluk
Madurai District ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent against
the order of this Court dated 16.04.2024 in WP(MD). No. 910/2022.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karunanidhi for R1
Mr.S.S.Madhavan for R2 to R6
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
The writ appeal is directed against the order of the writ Court dated
16.04.2024 in WP(MD). No. 910/2022.
2. The private respondent in the writ petition is the appellant
herein.
3. The challenge made in the writ petition is for Poojariship of
Palla Karuppasamy Temple situated in Usilampatti Taluk. Since the
petitioner's father and forefathers have performed as poojaris, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
petitioner was also given the right of poojariship and he is doing poojas
in the temple. While so, one Chinnakaruppan (who died on 27.05.2021)
had created disputes. Hence, a peace committee was conducted, wherein,
the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the
proceedings by appointing Chinnakaruppan as Poojari. In the peace
committee conducted, the writ petitioner being 'A' party and
Chinnakaruppan and 6th respondent/appellant are 'B' party. However,
without hearing the writ petitioner, the impugned proceedings was
passed. Hence, on that ground, the challenge was made to the impugned
proceedings passed by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer
dated 27.11.2021 before the writ Court.
4. The Writ Court had allowed the writ petition on the main
ground that the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has no role
or jurisdiction to select a particular person as Poojari. Further the Court
held that the RDO ought to have invoked Criminal Procedure Code and
pass appropriate directions as per law, but he had failed to do so. Further,
liberty was also granted to the parties to establish their rights before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
Civil Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 6 and the
learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner.
6. After hearing the rival submission this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to
select any person to act as poojari and the Writ Court had rightly held so.
The appointment of poojari comes within the purview of HR&CE Act
and the authorities under the Act has power to appoint or confer poojari
rights. Or else the individual ought to have approached Civil Court to
establish their rights as Poojari. The Writ Court had rightly relegated the
parties to approach the Civil Court.
7. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have invoked
the provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting the
peace committee meeting, but the RDO failed to do so. Furthermore, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
seen the RDO cannot issue positive direction to appoint a person as
poojari. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ
Court had rightly allowed the writ petition, which warrants no
interference at all. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[J.N.B.,J] [S.S.Y.,J]
01.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
TO
1.The District Collector
O/o.District Collector
Madurai District
Madurai.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
District Revenue Officer Office,
District Collector Office Campus
Madurai District
Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer Office
Usilampatti
Madurai District
Madurai.
4.The Tahsildar
Peraiyur Taluk
Madurai District
5.The Tahsildar
Usilampatti Taluk
Madurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
RR
ORDER
IN
Date : 01/04/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:48:44 pm )
