The Executive officer, vs The Commissioner of Land Administration,
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD)No.25244 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011213342026}
AND
W.M.P(MD)No.18877 of 2026
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil,
Palayamkottai Town,
Thirunelveli District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Thirunelveli District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Religious and Charitable
Endowments, Thirunelveli.
4. The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Town, Thirunelveli District.
5. S. Kanthiah @ Radhakrishnan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
st
calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings of the 1
respondent in Se. Mu. No. K2/6031140/2023 dated 22.07.2026 and
consequently direct the respondents to mutate the revenue records as
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
“Nathan-Punjai- Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar
Kovil and issue patta in the name of temple/ deity.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R1, R2 and R4 :Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Special Government Pleader
For R3 :Mr.M.S.Parthiban,
Government Advocate
For R5 :Mr.S.Kumar
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of
st
Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1
respondent dated 22.07.2026 and consequently direct the official
respondents to mutate the revenue records as “Nathan-Punjai- Sree
Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil and issue patta in the
name of temple/ deity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3. A primary objection had been raised by the learned Counsel for
th
the 5 respondent by contending that the present Writ Petition has been
filed by the Executive Officer, representing Arulmighu Mutharamman
Thirukovil, Palayamkottai Town challenging an order passed by the first
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
respondent, wherein, the first respondent had directed that the revenue
records should be mutated in the name of one Sree Narguna Sundara
th
Vinayakar Temple represented by its Hereditary Trustee, the 5
respondent, one Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai.
4. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein is also under
the control and management of the said Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar
Balasubramaniar Kovil. Further, heavy reliance had been placed upon a
circular issued by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department based upon
a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Civil Appeal No.4850 of
2021.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had
categorically held that in the revenue records, the name of the Deity alone
should be entered and not the name of the Manager or that of the Priest is
required to be mentioned. However, an exception was made in respect of
Poojaris performing their functions and cultivating the land to have their
names entered in the remarks column. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also
envisaged issuance of executive instructions to be issued and to be
supplemented in the Statute and Rules thereafter.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
6. As regards the objections against by the petitioner, it is to be
noted that the petitioner had been representing a Deity by name, Sree
Narguna Sundara Vinayagar and in this regard, the objection raised by
th
the 5 respondent, as to the maintainability of this Writ Petition, is unable
to be sustained, as this Court would also have to exercise parens patriae
jurisdiction in respect of a Deity, which is always considered to be a
minor.
7. Further, the objection raised that the impugned order has been
issued without there being any executive instructions by the Revenue
Department concerned, it is to be noted that in the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment, which is a law of the land where, the name of Deity alone has
been directed to be required and that even in the absence of an executive
instruction and a law, the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
would also have to be equally applied.
8. In such an event, this Court is of the view that the direction
issued by the first respondent t o mutate the revenue records in the name
of the Deity being represented by its Hereditary Trustee goes contrary to
the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order in so far as it directs recording of the
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
name of the Deity represented by its Hereditary Trustee alone is liable to
be interfered with.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of with a direction that the name of the deity, namely Sree
Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar alone shall be recorded in
the revenue records. Further, the classification that has been made as
“Natham Private” is without any such classification being recognised
under the Revenue Standing Order. Hence, the land only classified as
natham to be standing the name of the deity, namely, Sree Narguna
Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. Before parting with the case, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had given a categorical direction
that executive instructions could be issued to supplement the statute and
rules framed thereunder. However, the Revenue Department, State of
Tamil Nadu, as of today, had not issued any such executive instructions
in that regard. Hence, the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Fort St.Gorge, Chennai, shall issue necessary instructions in
that regard apart from a further direction to the respective revenue
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
authorities to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue records as per
the directions contained in paragraph No.27 of the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment referred supra.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cmr
To
1. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Thirunelveli District.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Religious and Charitable
Endowments, Thirunelveli.
4. The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Town, Thirunelveli District.
Copy to:-
5. The Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St.Gorge, Chennai,
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
cmr
WP(MD) No. 25244 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:06:23 am )