Madras High Court
Administrative and Public LawReligious and Personal Law

A peace committee may facilitate temple disputes, but any settlement cannot bind the parties.

Onchidevan vs The District Collector,

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A peace committee may facilitate temple disputes, but any settlement cannot bind the parties.. Onchidevan vs The District Collector,. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for the authorities to consider his representation and convene a peace committee meeting concerning the customary selection of a poosari for Arulmigu Nallathangal Kovil.

Source reference: para. 3, 6

The temple land had been purchased for the temple, and the sale deed named the sixth respondent as headman/leader.

Source reference: para. 4, 9

The petitioner alleged that the sixth respondent opposed the customary appointment and claimed ownership of the land.

Source reference: para. 7–8

The authorities stated that a meeting had previously been convened before the Tahsildar, but the petitioner had not attended, and that the dispute could give rise to a law-and-order issue.

Source reference: para. 8
02

Issues

Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer should convene a peace committee meeting to facilitate an amicable resolution of the dispute concerning the customary ceremonies and selection of a poosari.

Source reference: para. 3, 10

Whether any settlement reached at such a meeting would bind the parties.

Source reference: para. 11
03

Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Source reference: no citation

The Court treated a peace committee meeting as a means by which the Revenue Divisional Officer could persuade the parties to reach an amicable settlement, not as a forum to determine their rights; any settlement would not bind them.

Source reference: para. 11

No specific statute or precedent was identified in the order.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

Given that the Kumbabhishekam had taken place and further ceremonies were reportedly required under family custom, the Court considered a meeting among members of all five families, including the petitioner and the sixth respondent, appropriate to seek an amicable resolution.

Source reference: para. 10

However, because the sixth respondent disputed the petitioner’s position and claimed ownership of the land, the Court confined the authority’s role to facilitating settlement and clarified that any settlement would not bind the parties.

Source reference: para. 7–8, 11
05

Holding

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to convene a meeting as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven days of receiving a copy of the order.

The parties remained free to arrive at an appropriate decision; no costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Source reference: para. 13
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

OnchidevanvsThe District Collector,

Madras High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment