[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Ponnan Sankaran vs The Commissioner on 6 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P(MD)No.6172 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.6172 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD)No.5178 & 5180 of 2026
S.Ponnan Sankaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Neelakanda Pillaiyar Temple,
Yanthal Village,
Peravurani Town & Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
W.P(MD)No.6172 of 2026
pertaining to the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the second
respondent in Miscellaneous Petition No.03 of 2023 u/s.78 of HR & CE
Act, quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents
not to evict the petitioner without due process of law considering the
pendency of suit in O.S.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Sub-Court,
Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Anandan
For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.V.Ramesh Mahadev
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second
respondent in Miscellaneous Petition No.03 of 2023 under Section 78 of the
HR & CE Act as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents not to
evict the petitioner without due process of law considering the pendency of
the suit in O.S.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the material records of the case, the contention of the petitioner is that the
petitioner has title over the property as the property has been declared to be
a Natham property and the temple claim was rejected by the Settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
Tahsildar. When the eviction notice was issued, the petitioner contested the
same, however, the impugned order is passed ordering eviction of the
petitioner. The petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.370 of 2025 and
the same is pending. Pending the same, the petitioner should not be evicted.
3. Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would
submit that the suit itself is not a statutory suit. As far as the claim of the
petitioner is concerned, the petitioner does not have any title to the property
and the property belongs only to the temple. The petitioner has also filed a
revision as against the impugned order and the same also stands rejected in
view of the fact that the petitioner disputes title and he has already filed a
suit.
4.The learned counsel for the temple would also submit that the
temple is only the owner of the property and the petitioner has got no right
whatsoever.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
6. If the petitioner contends that the revision petition is erroneously
returned, then it is for the petitioner to represent the same and get a final
orders in the revision petition. If the petitioner, on the other hand, has also
chosen to dispute the title by filing the civil suit in O.S.No.370 of 2025 and
the prayer is only to abide by the decision in O.S.No.370 of 2025. For the
said purpose, it will be open to the petitioner to move an interlocutory
application before the same Court, in which, the suit is pending and the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
exercised for granting interim order pending the suit. It is stated that already
an interlocutory application has been filed and it is pending. Therefore, this
writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Subordinate
Judge, Pattukkottai to dispose of the interlocutory application filed in
O.S.No.370 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Needless to
mention that the learned counsel for the Temple shall also cooperate for the
enquiry in the injunction application, if any. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.03.2026
NCC:Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
am
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2026 04:33:29 pm )
