High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 25.02.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 17.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023and W.M.P(MD)No.19733 of 2023S.Karuppiah,S/o.Sathappan,Poovampatti,Thekkattur Panchayat,Thirumayam Taluk,Pudukottai District. ... PetitionerVs1.The Assistant Commissioner, The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, North Raja Veethi, Pudhukottai, Pudhukottai District.2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Arimalam Panchayat Union Office, Arimalam Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudhukottai District. ... Respondents1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd respondent from constructing a Kalaiarangam in the land in Survey No.255/32, Thekkattur Revenue Village, Pudhukottai District, which is in the occupation and the use of Sri Poovampatti Mariyamman Thirukoil, Thekkattur.For Petitioner: Mr.Mahaboob Athiff M.For Respondents: Mr.K.S.SelvaganesanAdditional Government PleaderORDERThis writ petition is filed to forbear 2nd respondent from constructing a Kalaiarangam in land in S.No.255/32, Thekkattur Revenue Village, Pudhukottai District, which is in occupation and use of Sri Poovampatti Mariyamman Thirukoil, Thekkattur.2. Brief Facts:2.1. Petitioner is a resident of Poovampatti Village forming part of Thekkattur Panchayat. He is a devotee and a “person having interest” in Sri Poovampatti Mariyamman Thirukoil, Thekkattur in terms of Section 6(15)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as “the HR&CE Act”).2.2. The said temple viz., Sri Poovampatti Mariyamman Thirukoil is an ancient 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023temple and a public religious institution as per Section 6(20) of the HR&CE Act and located in S.No.255/32, Thekkattur Revenue Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudhukottai District. It is stated that a road passes through the other end of S.No.255/34 of Poovampatti Village.2.3. Petitioner and other villagers have been using the land in front and adjacent to the temple for performing various religious rituals such as poojas and offering of pongal by devotees. Therefore, petitioner states that temple comprise the said land as well in terms of Section 6(20) of the HR&CE Act, 1959.2.4. Whileso, 2nd respondent on a request by Panchayat, for construction of a Kalaiarangam, chose land in occupation and belonging to the aforesaid temple adjacent to S.No.255/32 which lies in between temple and road.2.5. Petitioner submits that if a Kalaiarangam is constructed at the proposed place, temple would be deprived of land where rituals, ceremonies, including its annual festival are conducted access to temple would be blocked. If a Kalaiarangam is constructed it is likely to be used by political parties and Aadal Paadal events which may not be compatible with spiritual/religious environment of a temple.2.6. Since proposal of construction of Kalaiarangam has been sanctioned by Panchayat Union, 2nd respondent has started taking steps to start construction in the aforesaid land situated in S.Nos.255/32 and 255/34.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023 2.7. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.3. Case of the petitioner:The following submissions were made on behalf of petitioner by Mr.Mahaboob Athiff M.a) 2nd respondent Panchayat is under a misconception that land mentioned in petition vests with Panchayat.b) The contention of Special Government Pleader is that land classified as “poromboke” vests with State is patently misplaced for it is trite that merely because a land is shown as poromboke, the same does not belong to State. Term “poromboke” only reflects that said land is outside the purview of revenue collection. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Kuppusamy Udayar vs. Panchayat Nartham Gudi, reported in 1971(84) LW 120, wherein it was held the mere fact that resettlement register reflects a land to be a poromboke will not by itself make it a Government land or indicate title of State. Similarly in Muthammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 216, this Court held that poromboke does not indicate that land does not belong to State, instead "puram" means outside and "poke" means "revenue record" thus, poromboke only means the land in outside revenue records.c) Question as to whether lands in occupation of temple classified in "A" 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023Register as sarkar poromboke in Column 3 and 4, while simultaneously indicating possession of temple, can be put to a different use by State or local body is no longer res integra. In this regard, reliance was placed by petitioner in case of District Collector Kanchipuram vs. S.Guhan, reported in 2022 (2) WLR 14, decided by First Bench of this Court and in Arulmigu Thiru Neelaganta Nayanar Mayandi Swamigal Trust vs. the District Collector (W.P(MD)No. 6966 of 2023 dated 20.06.2024), wherein it was held as follows:i. Mere entry in Column 3 and 4 of A register as Arasu Poromboke or Sarkar Poromboke does not vest the land in question with State.ii. Reflection of a name of a temple in Column 12 of A register, even where column 3 and 4 states as Sarkar poromboke, shows that property is in occupation of temple and is a temple poromboke.iii. The said lands cannot be utilized for any other purpose other than for temple and temple has primacy/ superior right over such land and Governments control is merely regulatory subject to right of temple to ensure the land is utilized solely for the purposes of temple.iv. Land mentioned in petition cannot be treated as State land nor can it be used for a purpose alien to the purposes of temple. Any such alteration in usage should originate from temple for its bonafide means and not from the State or local body.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023d) Temple poromboke lands are communal properties that belongs to State, such lands are held by community for its benefit. These lands by custom belong to and administered for common benefit of inhabitants of village. Such lands would vest in Village Panchayat only if State Government so vests them by a declaration and even on such declaration, same is to be administered by Panchayat for the benefit of inhabitants or holders, in accordance with Section 132 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994.e) Unless the State Government by a declaration issued vide a notification vests subject matter temple poromboke lands which are communal lands in Village Panchayat, there is no vesting of such communal lands in Panchayat. Even if it is vested, it can be utilized only for the benefit of inhabitants for the very same purpose. f) Since there is no such declaration, the temple poromboke lands in question do not vest in 2nd respondent Panchayat. Futhermore, petitioner pointed out that legislature has consciously omitted to include “temple porombokes” in Section 134 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 which deals with power of the Village Panchayat to regulate use of certain porombokes. g) Respondent Panchayat is a statutory creature which owes its origin and existence to the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and therefore cannot claim the subject land is at the disposal of the State to be utilized by Panchayat in violation of express provisions of the Act of 1994.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 20234. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that all communal lands vest in panchayat and therefore, the same could be utilized for benefit of community/villagers. He further asserted that, even though temple is in occupation of the said land and it is reflected in A register as being in occupation of temple, column 3 and 4 of A register reflects the same as "sarkar" and "poromboke". Therefore, said land is to be treated as vested in panchayat. He further submitted that if there is any encroachment of the temple or the land in possession of the temple, the respondent Temple Authority may be permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings including Section 78 of HR & CE Act, 1959. He would also submit that there is only a proposal to construct a Kalaiarangam, thus writ petition is premature.5. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri vs. V.Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRS reported in (2009) 3 SCC 306, wherein it was held as under:“10. The High Court, in its impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that there had been no assignment in favour of the Temple by the State. It committed an error in relation thereto. The paramount title of the State is not disputed. It remains vested in the State. The State, however, having regard to the possession of the appellant over 32 acres of land classified the same as “Temple poramboke”. It, by reason of the said classification, not only permitted the appellant to continue to possess the land but also granted a superior right, namely, to make constructions as also to grant lease thereof subject of course to the conditions laid down as noticed hereinbefore. The principle of possessory 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023title was, thus, completely overlooked by the High Court. 11. It is now well settled that in India, nobody can take possession of an immovable property except in accordance with law.” 6. This Court finds that the present Writ Petition is premature as there is only a proposal for building a Kalaiarangam and no steps are taken yet. Since temple is claiming title over subject property, it is made clear that if there is any encroachment of the temple or the land in possession of the temple, it is open to the respondent Temple Authority to initiate appropriate proceedings including proceedings under Section 78 of HR&CE Act, 1959, and if any such proceedings are initiated, the same would be concluded in accordance with law. If the lands belong to the Government on the other hand, it is open to the authorities to proceed to evict encroachers if any after following due process of law. 7. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.17.06.2025Index: yes/noSpeaking order: yes/noNeutral Citation: yes/nospp/mka8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023To:1.The Assistant Commissioner, The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, North Raja Veethi, Pudhukottai, Pudhukottai District.2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Arimalam Panchayat Union Office, Arimalam Post, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudhukottai District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 2023 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.spp/mka W.P.(MD)No.23539 of 202317.06.202510/10