WP CRL.(MD)/4638/2026 of K. Senthilvel Kadarkarai Vs The Tahsildar on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reopen the temples, namely,

(1) Karuppasamy Temple, (2) Kaliamman Temple and (3) Vinayagar Temple which are situated at Survey No.196/38 and 163/12, Vadakkupatti Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District and permit all the villagers to worship the deities of the said temple in a traditional manner as they were doing in the past decades and consequently, to direct the third respondent to adequate police protection to prevent unlawful activities of the respondents 4 and 5 and their associates. 2 (a). The brief facts from the affidavit of the petitioner is just and necessary to dispose the writ petition is as that the three temples referred in the petition are situated in the Government poromboke land and natham land in Survey No.196/38 and 163/12 for a total extent of 47 cents in Vadakkupatti Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District. The said temple is Kuladeivam for three communities such as Naicker, Yathavar and Maravar. All the deity statues were erected by the ancestors of the said village. The people in the village taken steps to renovate the temple then and there. Every year temple festival is conducted in the tamil month of 'Vaikasi', out of the own fund collected in the village. All the community people jointly conducting the temple festival and also managing the temple administration.

(b) . In the year 1986, one Mr.Kaliraj claimed the temple land title. It was challenged by the third petitioner and three others in O.S.No.398 of 1986 before the before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. After hearing the parties, it was ordered that the temples were constructed at Government land. Hence, nobody claim such temples as their own. Then the said Kaliraj filed A.S.No.90 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenkasi, in which, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Since then, the temple festival was peacefully conducted by all the three community people. In the last two years, the respondents 4 and 5 were creating the enmity between the three community people.

(c) . Initially, they stopped the annual Vaikasi festival, on the ground that the renovation work of the temple has to be taken place. It was accepted and wish to collect “Thalakattu Vari” from all the community people for the renovation work. However, the respondents 4 and 5 refused and locked the temple and kept the keys with them and they did not allow to worship the deities by the villagers. Till date renovation work not started. Therefore, the petitioner given representation dated 21/07/2026 to the first respondent and the first respondent conducted a peace committee meeting on 28.07.2026. The first respondent instructed all the community people have right to worship the deities of the temple and no one make any hurdle to others to worship the god.

(d) . On 31.07.2026, Yathavar and Maravar Community people were trying to worship lord Kaliamman by way of brewing and offering 'Koozh' (fermented millet porridge) during the month of Aadi. But the respondents 4 and 5 directed the petitioners not to celebrate Aadi function. The said objection is without any lawful reason. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the first respondent, who sent the revenue officials and the third respondent to the village. They tried to convince the associates of the respondents 4 and 5 and peace talk did not end fruitful. Further, they simply locked and sealed the temples on that day itself. The villagers want permission to worship the God in a traditional manner as they were doing in the past decades without any hindrance of the respondents 4 and 5 and their associates. Hence, this writ petition.

3 (a). The fourth respondent filed a counter in brief is as that the writ petition is based on a one sided and distorted narration. The fourth respondent never prevented any worshipper from offering worship, nor created any communal disharmony. It is true that three temples, situated in Government poramboke and natham land and all the villagers have worshipped by persons belonging to different communities. However, the traditional right of day-to-day management, maintenance and administration of all the three temples has from time immemorial and even till date, being exercised by the members of the Vadugar (Kamavar) community, to which the fourth respondent belongs.

(b) . The said fact itself demonstrates the historical association of the Vadugar (Kamavar) community with the said temple and its administration. The land on which the Sri Vinayagar Temple and the Jeeva Samadhi of Sri Raja Gopal Swamy, who is grandfather of the fifth respondent, was registered in the name of a person belonging to the Vadugar community. The Karuppasamy temple is also situated in the Vadugar land. This is the additional circumstance establishing that the Vadugar (Kamavar) community has all along been associated with and responsible for the protection, preservation and maintenance of the temples. The jewels, gold and silver articles and other valuable sacred items belonging to the temples have always been kept under the custody and control of the traditional administrators belonging to the Vadugar (Kamavar) community.

(c) . There has never been any allegation of misappropriation or misuse against the said administrators. There is no ground made out to question the existing arrangement. The fourth respondent was entrusted with the keys of the temple and its usually in the morning used to open the temple and clean the temple light deepa and do poojas in the night, to close the temple. The fourth respondent never intended to create communal disharmony or enmity between communities. The allegation that the fourth respondent deliberately created enmity between communities is wholly false and is specifically denied. The allegation that the fourth respondent unlawfully locked the temples and deliberately retained the keys so as to prevent worship is emphatically denied.

(d) . When the temple was opened on 01.08.2026, two community groups attempted to enter the temples simultaneously and thereby a quarrel arose between them, and there was a possibility of deterioration of the law and order situation. In the above circumstances, the temples were closed by the authorities and the key was handed over to the office of the Tahsildar. The said closure was not an unilateral act of the fourth respondent. The factum of the incident was recorded by this Court on 13.08.2026. The petitioners suppressed the material facts. The petitioners 1 and 2 along with other community people purchased land in S.No. 160/8B measuring 36 cents in Vadakkupatti village on 05.06.2025 vide registered document No. 4908/2025 and constructed the temple and it is their possession and the same has been suppressed by the petitioners. The fourth respondent is ready and willing to abide by any lawful direction of the competent authorities for maintaining peace and enabling worship without discrimination. The fourth respondent did not object to genuine worship. The earlier civil litigation, in O.S.No.398 of 1986 and A.S.No. 90 of 1991, cannot be construed as conferring any exclusive right on the present petitioners either to administer the temple or to insist upon a particular manner of conducting religious activities. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

4. The fourth respondent counsel is also the counsel for the fifth respondent.

5. Heard both sides. Perused records. Considered the submissions raised by both sides.

6. The case of the petitioners is as that the subject three temples are village temples constructed by the fore-father's of the villagers in a poromboke land to an extent of 47 cents. These factors are not disputed by the fourth respondent. The temples were worshipped by all the community people in the village is admitted from both sides. It is the case of the fifth respondent that there is a Jeeva Samadhi of the fifth respondent's grandfather in the said temple and, therefore, the respondents 4 and 5, who are Vadugar community, have control over the temple administration. The factum of Jeeva Samadhi inside the three temples is not in dispute by the petitioners. However, the respondents 4 and 5 claim administrative control over the three temples, without any order or authority. Once the temples were constructed in the poromboke and natham land belonging to the village temple is common irrespective of caste.

7. Though the respondents 4 and 5 admitted that the temple belongs to the village and that the Jeeva Samadhi of the fifth respondent's grandfather is situated inside the temple, they have control over the temples and perform pooja and administer the temple for conducting the yearly festival. There is no order from the Court or any other statutory authority to accept it. The village temple festival should be conducted with the consent of all the villagers. It is an admitted fact that the Jeeva Samadhi of the fifth respondent is not situated on private land, but it is situated on the poromboke land and natham land in the village. Though the Jeeva Samadhi was constructed on poromboke land, the fifth respondent may claim right over the Jeeva Samadhi, but not over the temples administration.

8. The fourth respondent filed a counter stating that respondents 4 and 5 belong to the Vadugar community and that the Kaliamman Temple was constructed by them. The Kaliamman Temple is situated in a predominantly Vadugar community. The Vinayagar Temple and the Jeeva Samadhi are also situated on the same street. Even then, it cannot be held that the Vadugar community has exclusive authority to administer or exercise control over the village temple, without any order.

9. Though the petitioners made a representation to the first respondent to convene a peace committee meeting, a peace committee meeting was conducted. In the meantime, two persons belonging to different communities entered into the temple on 01.08.2026, and a quarrel arose between them, resulting in a possibility of deterioration of the law and order situation. Therefore, the temples were closed by the authorities and the key was handed over to the office of the Tahsildar, who is the first respondent herein.

10. This Court also tried to persuade the parties to arrive at an amicable solution to proceed with the temple festival in one manner or the other. However, neither the petitioners nor the respondents 4 and 5 accepted the same. Though there was an earlier suit filed by Mr.Kaliraj and others in O.S. No. 398 of 1986 for a permanent injunction in respect of their possession, which was decreed, the appeal before the appellate Court in A.S. No. 90 of 1991 was dismissed, and the order of the trial Court was confirmed. Since the property is poromboke land, no one has title over the same. The said decree cannot provide a shield to anyone.

11. The admitted fact is that all the subject temples situated in poromboke and natham land and sofar all the villagers from the different community worshipped and conducted yearly festival. Now, the issue is as to who has to administer the temples. The fifth respondent claims that, since the Jeeva Samadhi of the first respondent's grandfather is situated within the compound area of the three temples, it cannot be a ground to hold that the respondents 4 and 5 have been given administrative control over the temples. Therefore, the interested person may approach the competent forum to agitate the issue of administrative control over the temples.

12. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the parties herein to work out their remedy to claim over the temple's administration power before the appropriate Forum. Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No 09.10.2026 LS

To

1. The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Village Administrative Officer, Vadakkupatti Village, Thoothukudi District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 4638 of 2026 09.10.2026