WP CRL.(MD)/5293/2026 of V.Vellaisamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Offic on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to permit 4 to 16 respondents to conduct the Arulmigu Muthuraman Kaladi, Ruthrakasi Amman, Karuppanasamy Ayyanar, Soralagi Amman, Manthaiyamman Temple festival yearly twice scheduled in the Tamil Month Purattasi and Panguni which is situated at Mutthaneri Village, Narikkudi Post, Thirucchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar Districit and thereby directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to take stringent action against the 4 to 16 respondents, those who have excommunicated petitioner family and other 49 family members by way of Kattapanchayat.

3. Mr.I.Sudhagar, learned counsel filed vakalat for private respondents 4 to 16.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration i.e., 25.09.2026, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's representation sought to take action against the private respondents, inclusion of the petitioner and other 49 families to participate in the Temple Festival and also to allow them to participate in the administration of the temple by way of conducting Peace Committee Meeting. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on an earlier occasion, in the case of R.Karuppasamy v. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Madurai in WP.(MD)No. 6505 and 7179 of 2024, by order dated 12.08.2024, the Revenue Authorities have no authority to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting, as there is no law or Government Order, giving power to Revenue authorities. Since there is no law or Government Order conferring such power to conduct Peace Committee Meeting by the

Revenue authority, the said portion of the request made by the petitioner's representation cannot be granted.

5. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner to participate in the Temple festival may be considered as a suitable relief in terms of the representation. However, the request seeking participation in the administration of the temple festival cannot be granted as such a such it has to be deal with the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court may take appropriate view in the matter.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that, as per the request of the petitioner, police enquired into the matter by examining the petitioner as well as the rival parties. Ultimately, the petitioner's request was rejected,with a direction to approach the Civil Court, to exercise their rights with regard to the participation in the Temple festival. Accordingly, an order of rejection was passed on 20.09.2026.

7. The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that, the private respondents are coming from female descendants and others from the Samanthakaarar descendants.

Therefore, according to the private respondents, the petitioner and other 49 families are not entitled to pay the Thalaikattu vari. However, if they are willing to pay any amount as donation or Kaanikkai, they are permitted to participate in the Temple festival and also to pay donation or Kaanikkai. The other allegations that they have been ex-communicated is not true and is an allegation invented by the petitioner. It is further submitted that, there is no such Nattamai post in the said village.

8. If the petitioner is ready to pay any amount as donation or Kaanikkai and they are willing to participate in the temple festival, let them participate, there is no objection to the same since the petitioner agitated his claim without any basis. As of now, the date of the temple festival has not been scheduled and that, if this Court disposes the present writ petition, the private respondents may decide and fix the date of the temple festival in due course. At that time, the petitioner may participate in the Temple festival by paying any amount as donation.

9. In view of the statement made by the private respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner may be permitted to pay the Thalaikattu Vari and participate in the temple festival. However, since the right as to whether the petitioner is entitled to pay Thalaikattu Vari is the matter, the same has to be determined by the Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court.

10. As far as the participation in the said temple festival is concerned, there is no objection on the part of the private respondents, wherein there is no such ex-communication. The writ petition is disposed with an option to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of, with an option to the petitioner and other 49 families to participate in the forthcoming Temple festival in the said village by paying donation or “Kaanikkai”.

11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

12. The averment of the petitioner is such that, whenever the petitioner goes to pay the donation amount, the private respondents should not object the same and they shall receive the amount and issue a receipt for the donations made. The petitioner and other 49 family members shall also be permitted to participate in and worship in the Temple Festival. 25.09.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No psa To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Tahsildhar, Thiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Narikkudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

DR. P. MURUGAN, J psa

WP. CRL.(MD) No.5293 of 2026 25.09.2026