WA/1578/2025 of R.JEEVANANTHAM Vs T.S.SANKAR on 1 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

Dr.G. Jayachandran, J. & E. Manoharan, J. A. Introduction: Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, in Tamil Nadu, is one of the ancient Hindu Temples dedicated to Lord Shiva. It has been declared by Archaeological Survey of India as a ‘Heritage Monumental Temple’. The said Temple is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (‘HR&CE’ in short) and governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 through non-hereditary trustees. For conducting rituals and for the facilities for the pilgrims visiting the temple many have dedicated properties to the temple. The essence of these intra-court appeals relates to the possession and enjoyment of two properties dedicated to the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai for performing Kalasanthi Pooja (a religious ritual conducted to the deity) and a Chatram (Choultry for stay of pilgrims to the temple). Two private individuals, namely, T.S.Sankar and R.Jeevanantham in their in-fight as the saying goes, 'the coal calling kettle black', had brought to light how the endowment properties of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai been exploited due to negligence of the respective trustees and the callous attitude of the HR&CE Department by allowing the encroachment and attempt to grab the temple land turning a 'Nelson Eye', except occasionally on few occasions by certain vigilant officers.

2. Both the appeals are directed against the order passed in W.P.No.32503 of 2024 filed by T.S.Sankar. The Commissioner of HR&CE (second respondent in the said writ petition) is the appellant in W.A.No.1704 of 2025. R.Jeevanantham (fifth respondent in the said writ petition (is the appellant in W.A.No.1578 of 2025.

3. T.S.Sankar (the writ petitioner) questioning the legitimacy of R.Jeevanantham holding the post of Trustee in the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.32503 of 2024, alleging that R.Jeevanantham is acting prejudice to the interest of the Temple and he is holding the property of ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ attached to the Temple. The prayer in this writ petition was to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, dated 05.04.2024 and to quash the same and consequently to terminate the fifth respondent, namely, Thiru.R.Jeevanantham, from the post of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai.

4. Few months prior to filing of W.P.No.32503 of 2024, The HR&CE Department, claiming that the land of the Temple called as ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ (mk;kzp mk;khd; klk;) is in illegal occupation of T.S.Sankar and his wife D.Deepa had evicted them from the Ammani Amman Madam after removing the structure put up by him. The action of eviction was challenged by T.S.Sankar before the Commissioner, HR&CE in R.P.No.393 of 2023. To expedite the hearing of his revision petition pending before the Commissioner, HR&CE, T.S.Sankar filed another writ petition i.e., W.P.No.11487 of 2025.

5. By a common order dated 30.04.2025, the Learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.32503 of 2024, declaring R.Jeevanantham disqualified from holding the post of Trustee/Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. The Learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.11487 of 2025, upholding the action of evicting T.S.Sankar and D.Deepa from the Ammani Amman Madam. The operative portion and directions issued in these two writ petitions are at paragraph Nos.51 and 72 of the judgment impugned.

6. In short as far as W.P.No.32503 of 2024 is concerned, the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 05.04.2024 states that R.Jeevanantham is not disqualified to hold the post of Trustee/Chairman in the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple since he is not in possession of the Trust property nor in arrears to the Trust. The Learned Judge in the writ petition has negatived the finding of the Commissioner by holding R.Jeevanatham is still in possession of the Kalasanthi Arakattali property and not qualified to hold the post of Trustee/Chairman.

7. The point to be considered in these appeals are whether Thiru.R.Jeevanantham, the Chairman/Trustee of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, suffers disqualification to hold the office of Trustee as per Section 26(1)(h) or Section 26(1-A)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and whether the writ petitioner is entitled for claiming any right to enjoy the ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ property because he was victimised for opposing the decisions of the Temple authorities.

8. Besides the Learned Counsels for the Appellants, Thiru.T.S.Sankar, who is the writ petitioner and the first respondent in both the appeals, appeared in person and placed before this Bench his written submissions along with documents to substantiate why the appeals require to be dismissed and why his prayer in W.P.No.11487 of 2025 ought not to have been dismissed. B. Background facts:

9. In the year 2023, the vacancies for the Board of Trustees to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple at Tiruvannamalai was filled up by Commissioner of HR&CE. Thiru.R.Jeevanantham, was appointed as a Trustee on 28.06.2023 and unanimously elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees on 03.07.2023. Objection for appointing R.Jeevanantham was raised by T.S.Sankar on the ground that Thiru.R.Jeevanantham is holding a subsisting lease of the land owned by ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’, a specific endowment dedicated to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. Therefore he is disqualified to be appointed as Trustee of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, which is in violation of Section 26 of the HR&CE Act. The said objection of T.S.Sankar was not considered by the HR&CE Department, therefore, T.S.Sankar filed W.P.No.25295 of 2023, seeking a writ of mandamus to consider his representation/complaint sent through e-mail on 01.07.2023 and pass orders. In the said writ petition, considering the objection for R.Jeevanantham to hold the trusteeship of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai and the counter filed by the HR&CE Department as well as the private respondent Thiru.R.Jeevanantham, the Court disposed of the writ petition on 12.09.2023, observing that the objection of T.S.Sankar regarding the disqualification of R.Jeevanantham being a disputed fact, the Commissioner, HR&CE Department was directed to consider the representation and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.

10. In compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.25295 of 2023, the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, conducted an enquiry and held that R.Jeevanantham, who formerly held a leasehold right over the Kalasanthi Kattalai property in the year 2010, had surrendered the property in the year 2013 and was not a lessee of the Kattalai on the date of his appointment as Trustee of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. In the said proceedings, it is also stated that there were neither any rental arrears payable by R.Jeevanantham nor any complaint of encroachment of temple land against R.Jeevanantham

received. Hence, he did not incur any disqualification to hold the Trusteeship of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple as contemplated in Section 26(1) of the HR& CE Act. The said proceedings of the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, dated 05.04.2024, came to be challenged by T.S.Sankar in W.P.No.32503 of 2024.

11. Just before, T.S.Sankar filed Writ Petition No.32503 of 2024, challenging the appointment of R.Jeevanantham as Chairman of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE passed order under Section 78 of the Act, holding T.S.Sankar and his wife D.Deepa are encroachers of the land known as ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ a place devoted for the pilgrims of the Temple to stay as ‘Chathram’ (Choultry). The eviction proceedings which was initiated in the year 2015, but without much progress was revived and eviction was effected. We find that T.S.Sankar through one Amsammal as representative of Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ by interpreting the judgment of the High Court in A.S.No.347 of 1987 [Yasodai Ammal and others vs. Chinnathambi Pillai (deceased) and others], dated 21.08.2002, had filed a suit before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.4 of 2022 and the same was rejected by allowing the application I.A.No.04 of 2023, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE. A Writ Petition No.9631 of 2023 and Writ Appeal No.1014 of 2023 initiated through Amasammal to protect the encroachers of the Ammani Amman Madam land did not yield the result desired by T.S.Sankar and other encroachers.

12. The HR&CE Department pursued the enquiry proceedings initiated under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act and eviction was ordered by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, in M.P.No.70 of 2021, dated 15.03.2023, T.S.Sankar and his wife D.Deepa, who were found to be in illegal occupation of the land in S.No:1377, were soon evicted. For destruction of the Temple property, for obstructing the eviction process by forming an unlawful assembly and other related offences, the Additional Commissioner, HR&CE, filed a criminal complaint against T.S.Sankar and others in Crime No.140 of 2023.

13. While so, challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner passed in M.P.No.70 of 2021 dated 15.03.2023, T.S.Sankar had filed Revision Petition in R.P.No.363 of 2023 before the Commissioner, HR&CE. His main contention was that he was lawfully inducted in the Ammani Amman Madam land.

R.Jeevanantham and HR&CE officials, who are inimical towards him for being an activist involved in protecting temple property, had forcibly evicted him and in the course of demolishing his property, had also damaged the ancient building. Hence to dispose the Revision Petition No.363 of 2023 expeditiously, T.S.Sankar filed W.P.No.11487 of 2025, which came to be tagged along with his earlier writ petition, W.P.No.32503 of 2024.

14. The Learned Judge allowed W.P.No.32503 of 2024 with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the District Legal Service Authority. He held that the Kalasanthi Arakattalai is a specific endowment attached to the temple. There is absolute moral bankruptcy on the part of R.Jeevanantham, who is trying to occupy the property of the Kattalai for his own residence and at the same time have also assumed the office of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Temple. The Learned Judge concluded that he is unfit to be the trustee of the temple. The above observations of the learned Judge was made after examining the spot inspection report submitted by the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai.

15. For quick reference, the operative portion of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32503 of 2024 of the Judgment is extracted below:- Paragraph 51: “1) The fifth respondent (R.Jeevanantham) is declared as disqualified to be a trustee of Arulmigu Arunachaleshwarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai and forthwith he shall cease to be in the administration of the temple in any manner whatsoever;

2) The entire property belonging to Kalasanthi Kattalai in S.No.1396/1 admeasuring 4,400 sq.ft., shall be brought to the control of the Kalasanthi Kattalai by taking due proceedings under Sections 78 & 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and thereafter be auctioned by inviting tender by fixing proper rental value. Effective and expeditious steps to be taken for evicting all the unauthorised occupants including the fifth respondent in the manner known to law;

3) As stated above, the appreciation made by this Court in respect of the Assistant Commissioner/ M.Jothilakshmi and the Joint Commissioner/ R.Sudharshan shall be entered into their service records; This Court also places its appreciation on record for the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai, for the prompt inspection and a report with much clarity and supporting documents.

4) The Joint Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai, shall issue show cause notice to the trustees of Kalasanthi Kattalai in respect of the misconduct committed by them with reference to leaving the Kalasanthi Kattalai property under the custody of the encroachers even after the Civil Court decree by clandestinely withdrawing the execution petition, leaving the portion of the property for the rent for a very very paltry sum of Rs.2,000/- and did not even objecting to the super structure being put up or regularizing the super structure, taking different stands in the enquiry and helping the fifth respondent to hide the fact that he is residing in the property as on date and pass final orders in respect thereof in accordance with law;

5) The detailed fact finding enquiry shall also be conducted in this regard and if any criminal conspiracy is made out, with reference to withdrawing the execution petition and the subsequent action upto the date of production of rental receipt as if it is in the name of Ganesan, a complaint shall be lodged to the Jurisdictional Police. On receipt of the complaint, the jurisdictional police shall register the case and investigate into the same and the offenders be prosecuted in accordance with law;

6) The respondents 1 & 2 shall deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai and out of the cost amount deposited, the learned Secretary who conducted the inspection will be entitled to reimbursement of a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the expenses incurred by her in conducting the inspection.”

16. The Learned Single Judge in view of the commonness in respect of the parties and the cause espoused in the two writ petitions, disposed both the writ petitions through a common order dated 30.04.2025. The operative portions in respect of W.P.No.32503 of 2024 is in paragraph No.51 of the common order. The operative portion in respect of W.P.No.11487 of 2025 is in paragraph No.72 of the common judgment. C. Submission of the appellant in W.A.No.1704 of 2025:

17. The Commissioner of the HR&CE Department, in his appeal, claims that his proceedings dated 05.04.2024 is legally and factually sustainable. He challenges the observations leading to the conclusions extracted in paragraph 51 (1), (3) and (6) of the judgment impugned herein. In other words, the Commissioner of HR&CE justifies his decision holding that R.Jeevanatham is not disqualified to hold the post of Trustee in the Temple. He claims that there was no attempt made on behalf of the Higher Officials of the HR&CE Department to furnish false evidence before the Court. Relying on the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner in the earlier writ proceedings and the communication of the Assistant Commissioner, he submits that the statements of the Government made through the Additional Chief Secretary and the Department of HR&CE made through its Commissioner were erroneously termed as misleading and false.

18. In his grounds of appeal, the Commissioner of HR&CE, after explaining the difference between the term ‘Religious Endowment’ as defined under Section 6(17) of the HR&CE Act and the term ‘Specific Endowment’ as defined under section 6(19) of the HR&CE Act, contends that there is no subsisting lease between R.Jeevanantham and Kalasanthi Arakattalai. Without prejudice, even if it was found to be true that R.Jeevanantham was in occupation of the property of Kalasanthi Arakattalai, it will only be a disqualification for R.Jeevanantham to continue as a trustee in Kalasanthi Arakattalai and not a disqualification to be a trustee in the Temple, since Kalasanthi Arakattalai and the Temple are two distinct entities. A strong assertion is made in the grounds of appeal that occupation of the property belonging to the Kalasanthi Arakattalai will not act as a disqualification for R.Jeevanantham to be appointed as a trustee in the Temple.

19. The Learned Special Government Pleader, representing the Commissioner, HR&CE, submitted that a close scrutiny of the provisions to Section 26, a subtle difference could be seen. A person will incur disqualification for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution:- under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 if he has acted adverse to the interest of the institution. Whereas, a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of a religious institution or Endowment:- under clause (a) of sub-section (1–A) if he is interested in a subsisting lease of any property of, or contract made with, or any work being done for, the religious institution or endowment.

20. According to the Learned Special Government Pleader, the disqualification prescribed in clause (h) of subsection (1) of Section 26 is for any religious institution but the disqualification prescribed in clause (a) of Sub- Section (1-A) is restricted to the institution in which the person has any interest or subsisting lease. Insofar as R.Jeevanantham is concerned, he has no subsisting lease with Kalasanthi Arakattalai, therefore he is qualified to hold the post of Trustee/Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Temple.

D. Submission of the Appellant in

W.A.No.1578 of 2025.

21. Thiru.R.Jeevanatham, who had been declared absolutely unfit to hold the trusteeship of the temple and is trying to grab the temple property by fabricating records, aggrieved by the finding by the Learned Single Judge is before this Court. He contends that the proceedings of the Commissioner, HR&CE, dated 05.04.2023 was in pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.25295 of 2023, to examine whether he suffers any disqualification as alleged by T.S.Sankar in his objection. The Commissioner had examined the complaint and held that there is no subsisting contractual relationship between him and the temple. In the said proceedings, T.S.Shankar was also informed that if any question arises as to whether a trustee has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 26 (1) or subsection (1-A), the question shall be referred for the decision of the Joint/Deputy Commissioner and directed T.S.Sankar to approach the Regional Joint Commissioner under Section 26(3) of the Act. Therefore if Sankar still believes that R.Jeevanatham is not qualified to hold the post of trustee in the temple., he should be before the appropriate authority under the Act and the writ petition in the nature of 'Quo warranto' in the guise of certiorarified mandamus is not maintainable. The Commissioner of HR&CE Department, who is conscious of the nature of the enquiry ordered to be conducted by the High Court has after enquiry held there is no element to disqualify R.Jeevanantham. However, he had also rightly relegated to the appropriate authority to adjudicate into evidentiary details of the factual matrix involved in the matter. Nonetheless, the Learned Single Judge erroneously ventured to adjudicate disputed questions of fact by procuring report from the District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai. On the basis of the unsubstantiated report of District Legal Service Authority, dated 27.03.2025, he had arrived at an erroneous conclusion that R.Jeevanantham is in occupation of the 'Kalasanthi Arakattalai' property and erroneously declared him as disqualified to be a Trustee of the Temple. The said declaration, without following the procedure established under law, is illegal and unsustainable. When serious disputed facts are involved, without proper adjudication of the facts through established procedure, order misconstruing the scope of the writ petition has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

22. The Learned Counsel appearing for R.Jeevanantham/appellant in W.A.No.1578 of 2025, submitted that the writ petition filed for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus ought not to have entertained when an alternate efficacious remedy by way of petition before the Joint Commissioner under Section 26(3) of the HR&CE Act is available. The writ court erred in entertaining the writ petition without impleading the Trust and its trustees who are necessary party since the matter related to Kalasanthi Kattalai, which is administered by the Hereditary trustees. By passing the impugned order as if the relief sought in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of ‘quo warranto’, the Court has examined disputed facts considering materials collected through District Legal Services Authority, which is not in accordance with law.

23. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the tenure of the trusteeship expired during the pendency of the writ proceedings. Therefore, there is nothing remains to adjudicate. However, the observations made by the Writ Court against the appellant (R.Jeevanantham) will remain as a stigma and stand as a disqualification to become a Trust of any temple under the control of HR&CE Department in future, hence the remarks need to be expunged. E. Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai:

24. This ancient temple dates back to its existence to 11th century and spreads over 24 acres. Kings of Chola dynasty, Hoysala dynasty and

Vijayanagara Dynasty had contributed over centuries to build this temple. Nine Towers (Gopurams), the tallest of which is 216 feet. Lord Annamalaiyar and Goddess Unnamamalai Devi are the main deities of the Temple. Five Prakarams (walled corridors – circumambulatory path around the main deities) and about 40 shrines are inside the temple. Impressive stone sculptures, murals, paintings and about 500 inscriptions written in various languages found on the exterior of the sanctum sanctorum, which speaks volume about the heritage. Besides separate shrines for each deity, a Aayiram Kal Mandapam (1000 pillar hall), the Thirukalyana Mandapam (marriage hall with stone pillars), Thirtha kulam (water tanks) also build inside to facilitate the requirements of the deities and the devotees during the festival days. For the performance of yearly, monthly and daily rituals, several philanthropists have donated lands and their properties by way of endowments. Among them, Kalasanthi Arakattalai and Ammani Ammal Madam are two such endowments vested the properties to the temple for carrying out the religious activities mentioned.

F. Kalasanthi Arakattalai:

25. W.P.No.32503 of 2024 and the two appeals arising from the said writ petition center around the property of Kalasanthi Arakattalai attached to

Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, bearing T.S.No.1396 of Tiruvannamalai Town. The land measuring about 4,400 sq.ft. as a whole was donated for a Specific Endowment, viz., to perform Kalasanthi Pooja in the temple. From out of the 4,400 sq.ft, of land, a portion measuring 1,995 sq.ft and the building thereon, was leased to R.Jeevanantham. Whether the said lease still subsisting was the issue put to test in the Writ Petition No:32503 of 2024 to ascertain whether Jeevanantham to be declared as a person disqualified to hold the office of the Trust in Arulmighu Arunachaleshwarar temple.

26. At the risk of repetition, for the sake of easy reference, we recall hereunder certain facts which are related to Kalasanthi Arakattalai, 'Kalasanthi' or Kalaisanthi' is the daily ritual conducted to the deity during the morning hours. This is one among the six daily rituals conducted in a day at regular interval. The grievance of Thiru.T.S.Sankar in W.P.No.32503 of 2024 was that Thiru R.Jeevanantham, who was appointed as Trustee and later elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, is to be held disqualified due to his activity adverse to the interests of the religious institution and he have a subsisting interest in the property of the said religious institution, namely, 'Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Kalasanthi Arakattalai'

attached to the Temple. Accordingly, he filed W.P.No.32503 of 2024 seeking a writ of certiorarified Mandamus.

27. The other grievance of T.S.Sankar is that R.Jeevanantham, misusing his office of the Chairman, Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, evicted him and his wife alleging that they have damaged the building of 'Ammani Amman Madam' and had illegally constructed building over it. Challenging the eviction, T.S.Sankar filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, HR&CE. To dispose the Revision Petition expeditiously, T.S.Sankar filed W.P.No.11487 of 2025 seeking a writ of Mandamus.

28. The Learned Judge, having found that it is finally the interest of the deity which is involved in both the writ petitions, heard the parties common to both the writ petitions and passed a common order, allowing W.P.No.32503 of 2024 and dismissing W.P.No.11487 of 2025.

29. In W.P.No.32503 of 2024, the Learned Judge, after scrutiny of documents, found that R.Jeevanantham had acted adverse to the interest of institution. Learned Judge has also held that R.Jeevanantham has an interest in the subsisting lease of the property of Kalasanthi Arakattalai attached to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. The Learned Judge has recorded that the Government (first respondent) and the Commissioner of HR&CE (second respondent) have gone to the extent of suppressing facts to mislead the Court for protecting R.Jeevanantham. Hence, the Court while declaring R.Jeevanantham not qualified to hold the post of Trustee/Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai also imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the first and second respondents..

30. Section 26 of the HR&CE Act enlists who are all not qualified to be appointed as trustee of a religious institution. T.S.Sankar, in his complaints and in W.P.No.25295 of 2023, demanded the removal of R.Jeevanantham from the post of Chairman of the Trust Board of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai for encroaching the Kalasanthi land in T.S.No.1396. Based on a lapsed lease agreement, he continue to be in possession and carrying on his business in the premises under the name and style of 'M/s.TSR Construction'. Further, he had made a specific allegation that, R.Jeevanantham had demolished a 100 years old mud structure in the said land and had constructed concrete building with commercial shops, residential rooms and car sheds without any permission from the authorities concern. The Commissioner, HR&CE, in his proceedings dated 05.04.2024 had stated that the Administrator of Kalasanthi Arakattalai, Mr.Murugappan, had informed the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, that R.Jeevanantham is not an encroacher of the Kattalai land and also he is not in arrears of rent. However, the fact that R.Jeevanantham had entered into a written agreement for lease of 1,995 sq.ft of Kattalai land on 13.12.2010 is not denied but admitted by the HR&CE Department as well as R.Jeevanantham. The specific case of the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, as well as R.Jeevanantham, is that after the expiry of the three years lease period, the land was handed back to the Arakattalai on 20.12.2013. The core fact exposed by the Joint Commissioner, in his report dated 07.02.2024 that R.Jeevanantham, during the lease period, without permission, demolished the old building and had constructed a new building with three shops and garage on the ground floor and a residential premises on the first floor, in which R.Jeevanantham is residing has never been considered by the Commissioner as an act prejudicial to the interest of the institution. The report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority reveals that in the garage, cars of R.Jeevanantham, Sakthivel (ABT Parcel Service, occupant of

2,405 sq.ft land of the Kattalai) and Pugalenthi (Advocate) are parked.

31. The Learned Judge has also recorded in his order that the Chief Additional Secretary to the Government (first respondent) and the Commissioner, HR&CE (second respondent), instead of filing counter, had filed only documents in support of the proceedings dated 05.04.2024, and those documents particularly the communications of the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner does not substantiate the reasoning found in the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner holding R.Jeevanantham a person qualified to be the Trust of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. Hence, to clear off the contradictory versions regarding the possession of the Kattalai land, the Learned Judge vide order dated 27.03.2025 has requested the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, to conduct inspection immediately and submit a report to the Court as to whether R.Jeevanantham is still in occupation of the Kattalai property.

32. With due reverence to the High Court directions, on the same day, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, had conducted spot inspection and examined the records of Kalasanthi Arakattalai maintained by the Temple Devasthanam. She had submitted her report on 28.03.2025. From the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, it has come to light that the entire extent of land measuring 4,400 sq.ft is given for performing ‘Kalasanthi Pooja.’ The pooja expenses to be meted out by the Trust (Kalasanthi Arakattalai) attached to the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. Report of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority annexed with photographs reveal that the Trust was established in the year 1920 and the said endowment is attached to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai. Out of 4,400 sq.ft of land, 2405 sq.ft is in occupation of Sakthivel, who is not paying any rent to the Arakattalai. The remaining 1,995sq.ft taken on lease through a registered lease agreement dated 13.12.2010 by R.Jeevanantham for a period of three year. After the expiry of the lease period though R.Jeevanantham had informed the Trust that he is vacating the premises and agreed to execute a cancellation deed, no such deed executed by R.Jeevanantham. A concrete building with ground and first floor constructed with electricity service connection exist in the said land. No permission from the Trust and the Temple Devasthanam or from the local body obtained for putting up the said construction.

33. R.Jeevanantham, who had entered the land under the lease agreement dated 13.12.2010 for 1,995 sq.ft of land with the old mud construction with country-titled roof with electricity service connection, after taking possession had demolished the mud building and put up the concrete building with ground first floor. Except a letter from R.Jeevanantham stating that he is vacating the premises on expiry of the lease period, no other document available to show who, as on the date of the inspection, is in actual possession of the building, which consists of shops and garage in the ground and a residential portion in the first floor.

34. The report of the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, further discloses that, on her examination of the records maintained by the Temple in respect of the Electricity Service connection to the building, she found that Commercial service (Single Phase) for the ground floor been obtained by R.Jeevanantham on 23.11.2011, depositing Rs.1,800/- to the Electricity Department. For the residential portion in the first floor, a separate electricity service (Three Phase) for domestic purpose is provided based on the application of R.Jeevanantham made on 17.05.2023. In his application for electricity service, R.Jeevanantham had claimed that he is the owner of the building and he had paid a sum of Rs.15,336/- on 26.05.2023 for getting the service. Both the Electricity Services provided for the ground floor (commercial) and for the first floor (residential) which stood in the name of R.Jeevanantham was transferred in the name of Managing Trustee, Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Kalasanthi Arakattalai, through Form-4 only on 13.10.2023.

35. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that R.Jeevanantham was appointed as Trustee of the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple on 28.06.2023 and unanimously elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees in the meeting held on 03.07.2023. He assumed charge as Chairman on the same day. Thus, the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, along with 17 documents submitted to the Court is more than adequate to declare R.Jeevanantham is not qualified to hold the post of Trustee in the Temple, since he, without any authority or permission, had demolished the old structure of the Trust attached to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar temple. He had constructed a concrete building on the land of the Trust without any permission. He had claimed himself as the owner of the building and obtained Electricity Connections paying the deposits. He has transferred the Electricity services in the name of the Arakattalai much after assuming office as Trustee of the

Temple, just to screen his disqualification.

36. The Learned Judge, having found that the Kalasanthi Arakattalai is a specific endowment attached to the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple and that R.Jeevanantham been appointed as trustee and later elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees by the HR&CE department despite his interest in the Arakattalai, declared that R.Jeevanantham is disqualified to be a trustee, much less the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple.

37. As per R.C.O.A.No.5/1995/C1, dated 24.04.1997, issued by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Vellore, in exercise of power under Section 63(d) and (b) of the HR&CE Act on the petition filed by K.Ayya Subramaniya Mudaliar and 4 others 'Kalasanthi Arakattalai, was declared to be a specific endowment created for conducting Kalasanthi pooja in Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar temple. How the Arakattalai and the property came into existence is traced in the said order. The order says that, ‘Uyar Thulluva Vellala Community of Poonamallee’ had established a specific endowment for the performance of ‘Kalasanthi’ from out of the corpus fund of Rs.6,919/- matured out of the deposit made with the East India Company. Later, land measuring 3,528 sq.ft been donated by one Thirumanam Annamalai Mudaliar, vide gift deed dated 30.04.1920 for the Kattalai. Upon the vacant land, the Trustees have constructed building utilising the corpus. A stone inscription ‘Thiruvannamalai Arunachaleswarar Kalaisanthi Kattalai Dharma Veedu- 02/04/1921’ is found in the building wall. The trustees were elected or nominated for lifetime by the Mahasabai.

38. Considering the petition filed by K.Ayya Subramaniya Mudaliar and four others, seeking to declare that the schedule mentioned property measuring 42 x 84 feet in S.No.1398, with building bearing Door No.33, Big Street, Thiruvannamalai Town, set apart for performance of Kalasanthi Kattalai in Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai, which constitutes a specific endowment as defined under Section 6(19) of the Act, in the year 1997 the Joint Commissioner had passed the following order:- “The issue before me is whether the property constitute a specific endowment as defined, under Section 6(19) of the said Act and the petitioners are holding office as Hereditary, Trustees of the Specific Endowment.

The petitioners have proved their case through documents filed before this Court, that a specific Endowment was by set aparting created a corpus fund by the Uyar Thuluva Vellala Community of Pooramallee for the performance of Kalasandhi Kattalai in Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai. Later, one of the then trustee gifted a land measuring 3528 sq.ft, through gift deed dated 30.4.1920 and a building was constructed utilising the Corpus fund and from the income of the building Kattlai is being performed. By customs and usage, the petitioners and their ancestors were alone in management and none outside the community ever functioned as trustees. The Department has also not appointed non-hereditary trustees ever since from the inception of the Specific Endowment. Further there is no contra-evidence in this case. All the documents filed into this Court, proves the claim of the petitioners. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for declaration as prayed for. In the result, the petition is allowed and the schedule mentioned property viz., land and the building bearing Door No.33, Periya Theru (Big Street), Tiruvannamalai constitute a "Specific Endowment" for the performance of Kalasanthi Kattalai in Arulmighu

Arunachalaeeswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai and the petitioners are holding office as Hereditary Trustees as prayed for under Section 63(d) and (b) of the said Act.”

39. In the year 2003, Kalasanthi Arakattalai had initiated O.S.No.2 of 2003 to evict Thiru.Sakthivel, who was occupying the land and building of the Arakattalai, on the ground of default in paying rent. The Arakattalai succeeded in the suit and filed E.P.No.69 of 2004 for executing the decree. Strangely, the Trustees did not pursue the execution petition. To suit their convenience, the property was divided, leaving about 2,405 sq.ft of land with Sakthivel and the remaining 1,995 sq.ft of land and the old building given to one Chinnadurai, who is none else than the brother of R.Jeevanantham. After few years, R.Jeevanantham had entered into a registered lease agreement in the year 2010 in respect of 1,995 sq.ft of land and building. What he had done to the property after taking the land in lease is a serious matter for concern. From the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, anyone who reads the report will, without any pale of doubt, hold the conduct of Jeevanantham attracts disqualification to hold the office of Trust under section 26 of the HR&CE Act. The Learned Judge in the Writ petition has extensively extracted the report of Secretary, DLSA which is self explanatory.

40. The Commissioner, HR&CE, who failed to make a fair and proper enquiry inspite of Court direction, suppressing material facts gave clean chit to R.Jeevanantham. Even after the records staring at his face, he without any compunction, to justify his illegal proceedings issued to protect R.Jeevanantham for reasons best known, had stated that ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ does not come under the administrative control of the Temple. We view this as not a mere ignorance of law but an arrogant abdication of responsibility conferred under the Act on the Commissioner of HR&CE Department.

41. The Arakattalai is created for performing Kalasanthi pooja for Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar. The land was gifted by one of the devotee and the corpus collected was used for constructing the building. It is a specific endowment for the religious purpose (i.e.,) to conduct Kalasanthi pooja every day. When a dispute arose as to who was to manage the trust, the Joint Commissioner of the HR&CE Department, by order dated 24.04.1997 in O.A. No. 5 of 1995, declared that the Kalasanthi Arakattalai is a specific endowment attached to the temple. The officials of the HR&CE Department, who are expected to exercise its powers to ensure that the corpus of the specific endowment is saved and protected for the performance of the Kattalai, had miserably failed to discharge their duty in this case. While the law empowers them to take necessary action against the trustees whom they have declared as Hereditary Trustee for the specific endowment for any violation, the officials have remained mute spectators all along. They failed to prevent the destruction of old building, they allowed the illegal construction of a new building in that place, without any protest permitted the land-grabbers (Sakthivel and R.Jeevanantham) to squat in the property for a nominal rent. They have even allowed R.Jeevanantham to claim himself as the owner of the building which he had constructed on the temple land without permission. Above all, when the Court directed to conduct enquiry about the objections raised regarding the disqualification of R.Jeevanantham to hold the post of trusteeship, the Commissioner had given a clean chit to him suppressing material facts and also by creating fresh records. Through the independent enquiry ordered by the Court, the facts suppressed had come to light. The Learned Judge has therefore rightly observed that, to help R.Jeevanantham, the Commissioner had attempted to hide ‘a whole pumpkin in a morsel of rice’.

42. Section 26(1)(h) says, a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution if he has acted adverse to the interest of the institution. Both the appellants attempted to make out a case by pleading that, even assuming that the allegations against R.Jeevanantham that he had acted adverse to Kalasanthi Arakattalai is true, the disqualification will confine only to ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ and not in Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam Board of Trustees.

43. The above argument is exfacie untenable, misleading and perverse. Same has to be rejected outright for a simple reason that, a person who had destroyed the property of the trust which is created for performing specific Kattalai to the deity in the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple and tried to usurp it by creating records by using his influence, cannot be fit to be a Trustee of any religious institution, much less the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai. The proven conduct of R.Jeevanantham establishes the fact that by diminishing the corpus and converting it into his private property, the interest of the deity to be performed with ‘Kalasanthi pooja’ been affected.

44. Yet another point canvassed by the appellants is with regard to the disqualification mentioned in Section 26(1-A)(a) of the Act, which says that a person is disqualified to be appointed as a Trustee of any religious institution if he is interested in a subsisting lease of any property of the Religious Institution or Endowment.

45. The individual, (R.Jeevanantham) as well as the HR&CE Department, in their appeals still maintain that there is no subsisting lease of any property of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai, with R.Jeevanantham. The only lease was in respect of ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ property between 2010 to 2013 and the same expired long back. R.Jeevanantham had vacated the property and handed over the possession to the Trustees of the Kattalai. Even if the said lease is in subsistence, it not attract disqualification since the Kalasanthi Arakkatalai and the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple are distinct entity.

46. To say the least, the above statement is half-truth. The remaining truth, which has come out from the communications of the Joint Commissioner and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority is that, after expiry of the three-years lease, no fresh lease given to any other person. The property is still in occupation. The person, who is administering the place is one Ganesan. Documents were created after the filing of writ petitions, as if on expiry of lease period of three years, R.Jeevanantham had handed over the property and subsequently the property is leased to Thiru. Ganesan for a period of five years. The records created and produced, shows R.Jeevanantham though had promised to hand over the property and execute a lease cancellation deed, no such deed executed. Though the subsequent lease with Ganesan mentions the lease period as five years, the lease agreement written on Rs.50/- stamp paper was not registered as required under law and is mandatory. Above all, these documents has come to light only on 12.03.2025, after the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, inspected the spot and filed her report before the Court.

47. The Learned Judge, after recording these facts in his judgment from paragraph No.16 onwards, held that R.Jeevanantham is in effective possession and control of the Arakkattalai property which is attached to the Temple. One of the clinching materials which strengthen this finding is the application of R.Jeevanantham for a three-phase domestic electricity Service Connection, dated 17.05.2023, and his payment of deposit Rs.15,336/- to TANGEDCO and his payment of consumption charges. His mobile phone number was mentioned as the contact number of the consumer. After realizing that these records proved his possession of the property, when he was nominated as trustee, he had transferred the name of the consumer in favour of Kalasanthi Arakattalai on 13.10.2023. ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ and the Arulmigu Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple are intrinsically connected. They are distinct but inseparable. The very creation and existence of ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ is to perform Pooja to the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. Occupying the property of Kalasanthi Arakattalai is nothing but occupying the property of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. After entering into a registered lease agreement with R.Jeevanantham in the year 2010, till executing lease agreement for five years with Ganesan in the year 2025, the possession of the property, even as per official records was only with R.Jeevanantham. Since the Arakattalai is not maintaining registers and accounts, whether any rent collected at all is unknown. This again reflects on the mismanagement of Kalasanthi Arakattalai and the Temple authority to which the Arakattalai attached.

48. A vain attempt is made by both the appellants that the Arakattalai had deposited the required amount for performing the Kalasanthi Pooja, therefore the interest of the temple is not affected in any manner. It is made clear that the property of the Kalasanthi Arakattalai belongs to the temple. The

Hereditary Trustees, recognized by the HR&CE Department, responsibility is to administer the Trust and perform the ‘Kalasanthi Kattalai’. The Trustees are to be elected/nominated for lifetime by the Mahasabai. In this case, the trustees failed to protect the trust property. No accounts maintained by the trust in respect of income and expenditure. The HR&CE Department for years together had failed to carry out the auditing. For failure to discharge their duty and for acting adverse to the Trust, action should have been initiated against the Trustees. Instead, the Commissioner, HR&CE had filed truncated details to mislead the Court. His attempt has been foiled by the pro-active action taken by the Learned Judge to protect the interest of the deity.

49. From the facts and the sequence of events, we find that the whoever the Hereditary Trustees of Kalasanthi Arrakattalai, they are not capable enough to protect the property from encroachers and powerful land-grabbers and probably they are vested only to hold the office of Trustee ship to do the specific endowment without any pecuniary interest. Their conduct, indicates that they are not inclined to protect the property and administer it to the true spirit of the donors. Hence, it is time for the HR&CE Department to take necessary action for taking control of the property and evict the illegal occupants.

50. Considering the close proximity between the Temple and the Arakattalai property, we are of the view that this land is essentially required for the Temple to provide facilities to the pilgrims, such as enquiry counters/ refreshment rooms etc., In lieu of utilizing the Kattalai property, the Kalasanthi Kattalai, for which the property was devoted, can be performed by the Devasthanam without the Trust. The Kalasanthi pooja is to be carried out in co- ordination with the Trustees and recognition to the trust to be given by displaying the name of the ‘Kalasanthi Arakattalai’ and its Trustees (if any).

51. Insofar as the contentions of the appellant in W.A.No.1578 of 2025 that the Learned Single Judge ought not to have adjudicated on the disputed question of fact, we answer as follow, keeping in reference the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P.Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. Tahsildar and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447 more specifically, the following paragraphs: “47. One stock argument available with the State in this type of cases is that the question whether the actual physical possession of the disputed land had been

taken over or not is a seriously disputed question of fact, which the High Court should not adjudicate or determine in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As a principle of law, there need not be any debate on such a proposition, but by merely submitting that it is a seriously disputed question of fact, the same, by itself, will not become a question of fact. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or Ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact.

48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.

49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences."

52. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no doubt in holding that the case herein will fall within the parameters where the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be restricted and the Court will be required to delve into the facts even if they are “disputed” by the appellant. Notwithstanding the fact that the rights of the deities have to be considered and protected and the Specific Endowments for performance of “Kalasanthi” has to be performed in accordance with what was intended originally, it is also seen that the appellant in W.A.No.1578 of 2025

has acted in a manner which has led to diminishing the corpus and converting it into the private property. The appellant cannot take such “stock arguments” as remarked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment mentioned supra, to evade or circumvent the scrutiny of the Court insofar as to the acts committed by him. When these actions affects the interest of the Temple, the Court, as parens patriae, to protect the rights of religious establishments/temples, will have to take the necessary steps to protect them. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge did not err in obtaining the necessary report in order to ascertain and adjudicate on the facts that was placed before the Court.

53. As a result of the above discussions, the operative portions of the order found in paragraph No.51 of the common-order passed in W.P.32503 of 2024, dated 30.04.2025 stands confirmed, in addition to the directions mentioned in the previous paragraph. G. Ammani Amman Madam:

54. The other writ petition, W.P.No.11487 of 2025, disposed of through the common order is in respect of property in T.S.No.1377 measuring about 23,800 sq.ft., left by one Ammani Ammal, in whose name one of the nine towers which is on the Northern side of the Temple is called (Ammani Ammal Gopuram). This Tower was built during the 17th century by Ammani Ammal. From the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.347 of 1987, dated 21.08.2002, we understand that Ammani Ammal, who lived in Thiruvannamalai during the mid- seventeenth century, had constructed the Northern Gopuram of the Temple and at the time of its construction, the building known as Ammani Amman Madam was constructed to store construction materials. After completion of the Gopuram work, the building been used for providing shelter to the pilgrims. Ammani Ammal had entrusted the Management of the Choultry to one T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar. Ever since the entrustment, T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his descendants are in possession and administration of the property carrying out the purpose for which it was dedicated. During the period of the grandchildren of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar dispute arose between his descendants and the family members of Perumal Pillai who claim to be the direct descendants of Ammani Ammal. This dispute got resolved on the disposal of the Suit in A.S.No.347 of 1987 vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2002 by holding the plaintiffs, Yasodai Ammal and others who are the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar alone are entitled to administer the Choultry as its Trustees. The Choultry which is also known as Madam is meant for Pilgrims visiting the Temple. The claim of defendants that it is the private property of the descendants of Ammani Ammal was totally negatived.

55. For better clarity, we wish to elaborate further the litigative history of ‘Ammani Amman Madam’. O.S.No.100 of 1983 was laid before the Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai by Yasodai ammal and others as the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar, seeking declaration that the suit schedule property, called as ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ is a Trust property dedicated to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple to be used as a Choultry for the pilgrims and they as the family members/descendants of the T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar are its hereditary Trustees. The defendants in that suit made a rival claim, that Perumal is the direct descendant of Ammani Amman and his son, the first defendant Chinnathambi Pillai is in possession of the property. It is not a Choultry but the their private property. They were not put in possession to take care of the property but as owners of the property they live in the property. Though the property is called as Madam, it is in fact the private property of Ammani Ammal. After her demise her descendants are the lawful owners. Ammani Ammal never intended to dedicate the property for any charitable purposes. No Choultry exist in the schedule property. Even if there is any semblance of doubt about the ownership, the defendants have perfected the title by adverse possession. The Trial Court accepting the case of the defendants, dismissed the suit on 24.11.1986. However, on further appeal to the High Court in A.S.No.347 of 1987, the Trial Court judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, declaring the plaintiffs being the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar alone are entitled for Management of the Ammani Ammal Madam property morefully described under ‘B’ schedule of the plaint. The High Court, considering the practical difficulty faced by the Appellants/Plaintiffs to Manage the Trust and to protect it from persons like the Respondents/Defendants who might grab it for personal use, issued directions to the Trustees, who are the appellants/Plaintiffs, to co-ordinate with the Executive Officer of the Thiruvannamalai Devasthanam, so that the Devasthanam Authorities or any other charitable trust like the charities mentioned in Ex.A1 (Will dated 16.09.1962). The reference of the property as Madam (Choultry), in the tax exemption granted by the Municipality from property tax vide Ex.A14 dated 25.02.1925, the request of the Temple Trustees and the Chairman to use the Choultry premises during the Kumbabisekham held in the year 1962 and other documents consistently referring the property as Madam (Choultry), the Court has concluded that there had been an implicit dedication of the property for the use of pilgrims which is a charity having religious purpose. Based on this categorical finding by the High Court in the Appeal Suit, the Temple authorities passed orders under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act against the illegal occupants of Ammani Amman Madam. Challenging the eviction notices issued by the temple, W.P.No.9631 of 2023 filed in the name of Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam, represented by its Trustee Amsammal. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the eviction process and dismissed the writ petition, with an observation that if there is any disputed facts regarding ownership, the parties are at liberty to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 21 of the HR&CE Act or the Civil Court, as the case may be. As against the order of the Learned Single Judge, an intra-court appeal filed by Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam in W.A.No.1014 of 2023. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal on 05.03.2024 with the following observations:- “5. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No.3 submit that there is no dispute that upon removal of the encroachment, the property should go back to the Trust. According to them, the appellant is representing the Trust registered in the

year 2011 whereas there is one old trust of the year 1784. It is further submitted by them that the total area of the Mutt in question is 25247 sq.ft. and the order under Section 78 is passed against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of a portion of the said property.

6. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, the order of eviction can be passed against an encroacher or a person in unauthorised occupation. Since it is a religious institution, the order has been passed. It appears that error has cropped in while passing the order under Section 78 that the same is to be handed over to the Temple. In fact, the same is required to be handed over to the Trust. The order under Section 78 to the effect that it is to be handed over to the Temple requires to be modified to the extent that it is to be handed over to the Trust and the conclusion that the said property belongs to the Temple cannot be sustained. It would belong to the Trust. If the balance land is in possession of a third party encroacher, action can be taken under Section 78 against him also.

7. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate for respondent No.3 that the structure that was demolished while demolishing the encroachment area of the Mutt would be re-constructed.

With the aforesaid observation and modification, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

56. It is to be noted that Amsammal, who claimed herself to be the Trustee/Secretary of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam Trust, before filing the W.P.No.9631 of 2023 and the W.A.No.1014 of 2023, filed a Civil Suit, O.S.No.4 of 2022 seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the HR&CE Department from interfering with the management and administration of the property belonging to the plaintiff-Trust. After detailed discussion on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., by the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, to reject the plaint on the ground that it was barred under law and for want of locus standi and cause of action, the Court rejected the suit vide order dated 13.03.2023.

57. It is pertinent to record that, in W.A.No.1014 of 2023, the Division Bench did not interfere with the action taken under Section 78 of the Act against the encroacher. It modified the order of the Learned Single Judge to the extend that the land recovered from the encroachers has to be vested with the Trust and not the Temple.

58. While so, T.S.Sankar and his wife, D.Deepa, who were in occupation of a portion of the Ammani Amman Madam in the building constructed by them, were evicted pursuant to the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE dated 15.03.2023. Claiming as a lawful lease hold of the portion of the Ammani Amman Madam under registered document No:6464/2017 executed by one T.M.Loganathan, the Managing Trustee of Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Trust, he questions the eviction proceedings under Section 78 initiated by the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, attributing motive and fraud. He has impugned the eviction proceedings dated 15.03.2023 before the Commissioner, HR&CE, through Revision Petition No.363 of 2023.

59. According to T.S.Sankar, the decree passed in A.S.No.347 of 1987 and the order passed in W.A.No.1014 of 2023, recognize the right of the trustees to deal with the Ammani Amman Madam property, including the right to induct new Trustees. After reconstituting the Trust, he had entered into a lease deed with the Managing Trustee for a portion of the property and had put up construction. The said construction was demolished by the HR&CE Department illegally based on the eviction order passed by Joint Commissioner. Hence, he had filed revision petition before the Commissioner, which is still pending. To expedite the hearing of his Revision Petition, he filed W.P.No.11487 of 2025 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus. The writ petition was wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge, making certain observations on facts, which has rendered his Revision Petition otiose. Hence, he had filed a petition to review the order passed in his writ petition, W.P.No.11487 of 2025 and the same is pending.

60. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents/HR&CE submitted that T.S.Sankar is a ranked trespasser into the Ammani Amman Madam. The Trust and Trustees mentioned in A.S.No.347 of 1987 is the trust referred in Ex.A1 of the suit. The High Court has declared that the plaintiffs in the suit, who are the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar, alone are the Trustees of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Trust. Whereas, T.S.Sankar relying on a lease deed executed by a person who claimed himself to be a trustee of new Trust created in the year 2011, claims he and his wife are lawful occupants. Referring the portions in the judgment of the

Learned Single Judge, the Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the trustees of the newly created trust in the year 2011 are mostly strangers to the T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar family. They have no right to meddle with the Ammani Amman Madam and its property. The Civil Court, in O.S.No.04/2022 filed by the Amsammal representing Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam Trust had gone into the claim of Amsammal to administer the Trust and negatived the same. The Civil Court has recorded that the new trust dated 19.10.2011 formed in detrimental to the object of the original trust, which consists of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar’s descendants and the new trust of the year 2011 to administer the subject property is in violation of the directions issued by the High Court in A.S.No.347 of 1987. T.S.Sankar, as a Trustee in the newly created Trust, had inducted 1) the Secretary of Yadava Madam, 2) Chidambaram Sonalsamy of Tiruporur, Chennai, 3) Narayanasamy of Kanthapalayam Village and 4) Amsa ammal, a permanent Resident of Vellore, through a supplementary Trust Deed dated 04.11.2022. These inducted trustees are no way connected to the T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar family. T.S.Sankar had put up construction on the Madam land without any permission and authority. His baseless Revision Petition cannot be a bar for the Temple to take possession of the Madam land dedicated for pilgrims visiting the Lord

Annamalaiyar Temple. The Trust mentioned in W.A.No.1014 of 2024 is not the new trust created by impostors. The Learned Judge, after harmonious reading of the judgments passed in A.S.No.347 of 1987 and the orders passed in W.P.No.9631 of 2023 and W.A.No.1014 of 2023 instituted in the name of Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam through Amsammal has held that the correct interpretation of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1014 of 2023 will be to entrust the administration of the property through the Executive Officer of the Temple.

61. While we find substance in the above submission made by the Learned Special Government Pleader, justifying the eviction action and dearth of bonafide in his Revision Petition in R.P.No.363 of 2023 pending before the Commissioner, we note that the reason given by the Court while rejecting the Civil Suit O.S.No.04 of 2022 filed by the so-called Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Trust through Amsammal is a vital document to hold that T.S.Sankar can have no legs to claim rights in the property as a lessee under a trust which is not the real trust consisting of the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar.

62. Yet another fact which fortifies our view to confirm the order of the Learned Single Judge and necessary to place on record is the criminal case registered against T.S.Sankar and others in Crime No.140 of 2023 for preventing the drive undertaken by the HR&CE officials on 18th and 19th of March 2023 to evict the unauthorized occupants of the Ammani Amman Madam. T.S.Sankar and others were arrested and approached this Court seeking Bail. Initially, the bail petition was heard by one of us (Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran) on 03.04.2023. Upon hearing the contention of T.S.Sankar that he is a Lawyer and Activist involved in protecting Temples and their properties and under the guise of demolishing the unauthorized construction, the HR&CE Department had illegally demolished 400 years-old heritage structure and for protesting the illegal demolition, he was arrested along with others, this Court, to ascertain the veracity of the above statement, suo motu impleaded HR&CE, Assistant Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai and appointed Advocate Ms.G.Vrinda Ramesh as Court Commissioner to inspect the place and file report on 06.04.2023. The report of the Court Commissioner concluded as below:- “I respectfully submit that after the inspection of the demolition site. I visited the temple when the residents of the area came to see me voluntarily and introduced themselves as follows: Sridhar Ex.Municipal Chairman Nirmala Karthivelmaran, Municipal Chairman, Jeevanadhan, nearby resident of Ammani Ammal Choultry, T.M.Shanmugam, Head of Vannigar Sangam Arul Kumar Councilor, opposite house of demolition site and others. They said they had come for the protection of the Temple. When asked whether anyone of them were present on the day of demolition or had witnessed it. They said they came to know only the next day and came to protest. On my questioning they further stated the following:

* Sankar vacated the premises with all his belongings previous night.

* Demolition started at 6 o clock.

* HR&CE authority with 50 police personnel with two JCB’s and one Hitachi Chain JCB stared demolition of the encroached property 600 square feet starting from the transformer till the car shed. They had also stated that there was a two-floor residential house with a car shed which was used by Sankar and previously a tea shop by Meena which was just removed the day before demolition i.e., on 18.03.2023. They had also provided pictures of the same. I had also received videos of demolition of the Ammani Ammal mutt from the local residents.”

63. For the reasons given above, we have no hesitation to reiterate that T.S.Sankar is a ranked encroacher and manipulator of documents. T.S.Sankar, under the guise of calling himself a Temple activist and a practicing Advocate, had misused his political affiliations for his personal gain. He is trying to shield his misdeed through litigation and by agitation. The land known as the ‘Ammani Amman Madam’ is a place devoted solely for the pilgrims visiting Temple to stay as ‘Chathram’ (Choultry). A small temple with Gopuram is also located within the Ammani Amman Madam. The proceedings initiated to evict him from the Ammani Amman Madam in the year 2015 did not proceed for a longtime. We find that T.S.Sankar, interpreting the judgment of the High Court in A.S.No.397 of 1987 (Yasodai Ammal and others vs. Chinnathambi Pillai (deceased) and others) dated 21.08.2002 had created a new trust in the year 2011 with few members of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar descendant and few strangers to his family. He got himself inducted as a Trustee to the newly formed, sound-alike trust. The said Trust has leased out a portion of the property to his wife, D.Deepa. T.S.Sankar and his wife D.Deepa had damaged the age old structure and had put up construction unauthorisedly. He had created a supplementary Trust Deed recently just before filing suit and writ petition, inducting few more persons unconnected to the T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar family and through them, he had been resisted the eviction proceedings initiated by the Temple authorities against him and other encroachers. The suit in O.S.No.04 of 2022, before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, filed through this fake trust, was rejected by allowing the application I.A.No.04 of 2023 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE.

64. By order of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, in M.P.No.70 of 2021, dated 15.03.2023, T.S.Sankar and his wife D.Deepa, who were found in illegal occupation of the land in S.No.1377, were evicted. Besides, for destruction of the Temple property, for obstructing the eviction process by forming unlawful assembly and other related offences, the Additional Commissioner of HR&CE filed a criminal complaint against T.S.Sankar and others in Crime No.140 of 2023. Challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner passed in M.P.No.70 of 2021 dated 15.03.2023, T.S.Sankar had filed revision petition R.P.No.363 of 2023 before the Commissioner HR&CE.

65. His main contention is that, he was lawfully inducted in the Ammani Amman Madam’s land. R.Jeevanantham as Chairman of the Arulmigu

Arunachaleswarar Temple and the HR&CE officials, who are inimical towards him for being an activist involved in protecting temple property had forcibly evicted him and in the course of demolishing his property, they also damaged the ancient building. Hence, his revision petition must be disposed of expeditiously, However the facts from the record shows that, the action to evict him from the Ammani Amman Madam commenced in the year 2015 itself. He had been in illegal occupation of the Madam much before he created documents to legalise his illegal entry. The persons who have given lease of the land are not the trustees consisting of family members of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar who alone are recognised to be the Trust for the property of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam as per the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court in A.S.No.347 of 1987.

66. Thus, we find that, in the Civil Suit initiated by the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar to declare their family as the Trustees to Manage the Ammani Ammal Madam property more fully described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint, High Court has decreed as prayed for in A.S.No.347 of 1987 dated 21.08.2002. Not stopping with the declaration, the Learned Judge rightly, in anticipation of any attempt to grab the property in future, has issued direction to the trustees as below:- “In view of the wishes of the testator in Ex.A1 and the obvious practical difficulties faced by the appellants to manage the Trust and to protect it from person like the respondents who might grab it for personal use, a direction is given to the appellants to coordinate with the Executive Officer of the Tiruvannamalai Devasthanam so that the Devasthanam Authorities or any other charitable trust like the Charities mentioned in Ex.A1 are made trustees along with the family of the appellants”

67. In W.A.No.1014 of 2023, the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, court has observed as below:- “5. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No.3 submit that there is no dispute that upon removal of the encroachment, the property should go back to the Trust. According to them, the appellant is representing the Trust registered in the year 2011 whereas there is one old trust of the year 1784. It is further submitted by them that the total area of the

Mutt in question is 25247 sq.ft. and the order under Section 78 is passed against the persons who are in unauthorised occupation of a portion of the said property.

6. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, the order of eviction can be passed against an encroacher or a person in unauthorised occupation. Since it is a religious institution, the order has been passed. It appears that error has cropped in while passing the order under Section 78 that the same is to be handed over to the Temple. In fact, the same is required to be handed over to the Trust. The order under Section 78 to the effect that it is to be handed over to the Temple requires to be modified to the extent that it is to be handed over to the Trust and the conclusion that the said property belongs to the Temple cannot be sustained. It would belong to the Trust. If the balance land is in possession of a third party encroacher, action can be taken under Section 78 against him also.

7. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate for respondent No.3 that the structure that was demolished while demolishing the encroachment area of the Mutt would be re-constructed. With the aforesaid observation and modification, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

68. The Learned Judge, (Mr. Justice T.Bharatha Chakravarthy), who rendered the common order in W.P.No.32503 of 2024 and in W.P.No.11487 of 2025 is privy to the Division Bench Judgment passed in W.A.No.1014 of 2023. Therefore, his interpretation of the Division Bench order about the entrustment of the Management to the Trust carries significance. His interpretation is in tune with the Civil Court’s finding in I.A.No.04 of 2023 in O.S.No.04 of 2022, dated 13.03.2023 harmoniously read with the other judgments in the connected subject appears appropriate.

69. The Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Ammani Amman Madam represented by Amsammal is not the Trust consisting of the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar. Therefore, any reference about the Trust in the W.A.No.1014 of 2023 will not mean the Trust represented by Amsammal inducted by T.S.Sankar with a sole intention to grab the property of the Temple. As rightly observed and feared by Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Prabha Sridevan in A.S.No.347 of 1987, in her judgment dated 21.08.2002, the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar have lost interest in carrying out the object of the Trust and also not able to resist the encroachers. This has emboldened T.S.Sankar to create a new Trust deed in the year 2011 taking one of the descendants on his side for creating new Trust. Had the descendants of T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar after obtaining the declaration honestly co-ordinated with the Executive Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam for proper administration of the property and utilization of it for the visiting pilgrims, the present situation would not have arisen. Their failure has caused severe prejudice to the object of the Trust. We also notice from the Advocate Commissioner (Mrs.G.Vrinda Ramesh) report dated 06.04.2023, in the course of the evicting the encroachers portion of the 400 years old ancient structure been demolished. From the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1014 of 2023, we find at paragraph No.7, the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, HR&CE had given an undertaking to the Court that the ancient structure which was demolished while demolishing the encroachment area of the Mutt will be re-constructed.

H. Conclusion:

70. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, while we confirm the order of the Learned Judge passed in W.P.No.11487 of 2025, we reiterate the directions issued in paragraph No.72 of the Common Order dated 30.04.2025, which reads as below and to be implemented without further delay.

“(i) The prayer of the petitioners to dispose of the revision made in R.P.No.363 of 2023 shall stand negatived;

(ii) The petitioners cannot in any manner interfere with the action of the Trustee of Ammani Amman Madam trust in securing the possession of the property in Survey No.1377 admeasuring a total extent of 25,247 sq.ft. at No.9, Ammani Ammal Gopuram Street, Tiruvannamalai;

(iii) The first and second respondents are directed to include in their department budget any sum towards putting up of super structure only for the benefit of devotees including parking facilities, cloak rooms, dormitories but no other commercial purposes. Such scheme can be framed for proper upkeep of the entire premises and for collecting minimum rent from the devotees and at least 50% of the portion being made available for free of charges/nominal for the poor devotees. Even rest of the portion, minimal charges can be levied;

(iv) The first petitioner being the trustee of the said proclaimed trust cannot in any manner interfere with the Executive Officer immediately safeguarding the possession of the property. The banners if any of the private persons kept in the said property be removed and the entire property be in the control of the Executive Officer in the capacity of Ammani Amman Madam;

(v) The Commissioner, shall nominate trustees (who are properly qualified) to act as trustees along with the Executive Officer of the Temple to manage the said Ammani Ammal Madam, as per the procedure;

(vi) The jurisdictional Police including the Superintendent of Police Tiruvammalai shall give due protection for maintaining the said lands with the Madam, as administered by the Executive Officer of the Temple. Due safeguards be made not to allow any other persons to encroach the property.

(vii) Even if any other portion of the property remains in encroachment of any third party, forthwith steps shall be taken under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act to secure those portions also.”

71. In addition, we issue the following directions to be carried out by the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai forthwith to meet the dire need of the pilgrims visiting the Temple:-

a) The entire land of the Ammani Amman Madam in S.No.1377 to be measured and compounded. If still any encroachers exist, they should be evicted immediately.

b) The old structure of the Ammani Amman Temple inside the Madam area has to renovated and the demolished portion of the temple to be re- constructed with the advice of the Heritage Committee.

c) Necessary plan and budget to be prepared for a construction a "Pilgrim Complex" to utilize the vacant land which is in or about 25,000 sq.ft, for the benefit of the pilgrims, as suggested in paragraph No.72 (iii). The proposal to be proceeded immediately and the construction has to be started preferably before the end of March 2027. The Pilgrim Complex, may be named after "Ammani Ammal" in recognition of her charity and devotion to the Deity.

d) Till the commencement of the construction of a permanent structure in the said land, the vacant land cannot be kept vacant. Hence, to cater the immediate needs of the visiting pilgrims, the Executive Officer has to put up temporary structures for waiting, dinning, cloakrooms, toilets etc., by leveling the vacant land and make it fit for the said purpose. The temporary structures must be put up immediately, ensuring that the pilgrims visiting the temple during the Deepam festival do not stand outside and inside the temple for hours together without basic facilities.

72. We expect the HR&CE Department will act in war footing to carry out the above directions and report on 10th November, 2026. Inspired by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri [Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2018

(2) SCC 785 and 2019 (18) SCC 1], we are of the view that, like Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri in Odisha, the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai requires specialized and independent supervision over the existing Hierarchical Administration. These two cases clearly demonstrate how the men in power can control the Trusts and its property dedicated to the Temple to make personal benefits instead of discharging the objects of the Trust.

73. Therefore, to monitor the execution of the directions issued above and any other directions to be issued by this Court in respect of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple at Tiruvannamalai, in other connected Writ Petitions or Writ Appeal pending before the Court, we constitute a High-Level Committee consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Kannan (Retired Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana) as the Chairman, assisted by Mr.S.Jayaraman (Retd. Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department) (Mobile No.: +91-98250 95526) and Mr.Muthukrishnan, Proprietor, Aakash Hotel, Tiruvannamalai – 606 604 (Phone No.: +91-94431 14548). The High-Level Committee shall monitor the implementation of this Court’s orders and submit their reports/suggestions to this Court through the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

74. The District Administration and the Temple authorities are directed to give atmost cooperation to the High Level Committee whenever their assistance is sought to carry out the mandate given to the Committee.

75. Before concluding, we are impel to add that we are able to find some reasoning and justification for R.Jeevanantham to prefer this appeal, since his personal right to hold trusteeship in any religious institutions is impaired by the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. However, we find no plausible reason or justification for the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, to file this appeal by making a ridiculous distinction between a ‘Religious Endowment’ and ‘Specific Endowment’ to say Temple has no role in administering the said property. In the case of Kalasanthi Arakattalai, which was declared as a Specific Endowment by the Department after due enquiry, the very nature of the Endowment being the performance of the Kalasanthi Pooja in the Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, which is absolutely and purely a religious activity, the contention of the Commissioner, HR&CE is nothing but illusionary.

Result:

76. In fine, we hold that the directions issued by the Learned Judge in paragraph No.51 and in paragraph No.72 is affirmed. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals in W.A.No.1704 of 2025 filed by the Commissioner, HR&CE and W.A.No.1578 of 2025 filed by Thiru.R.Jeevanantham stand dismissed with the directions stated above.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (Dr. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (E. MANOHARAN, J.) 27-10-2026 Index :Yes. Neutral Citation :Yes/No. Internet :Yes. Speaking order/Non-Speaking order bsm To,

1. The Chief Additional Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Board, No. 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Thousand Lights, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

3. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai.

4. The Zonal Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE), Thiruvannamalai.

Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. & E. MANOHARAN, J. bsm Pre-Delivery Common Judgment made in W.A.Nos.1578 & 1704 of 2025 Judgment delivered on 27-10-2026