Temple-land possession grievances should be submitted to the competent HR&CE authority for decision.

The petitioner claimed possession of specified lands in Sozhatharam village, asserting that his parents had purchased them and that he continued in possession as a cultivating tenant, paying lease rent to the fifth respondent.

After the sixth respondent-temple was declared denominational, the fifth respondent issued an auction notice concerning the lands.

The petitioner sought a mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 5 from interfering with or dealing with the property under the HR&CE Act.

He relied on an objection submitted to the fifth respondent on 5 August 2026; the respondents submitted that he should pursue the remedy available before the competent authority under the Act.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 5 from dealing with or interfering with the property

Whether the petitioner should first place his grievance before the competent authority under the HR&CE Act, rather than seek the requested relief directly under Article 226

Article 226 empowers the High Court to grant public-law relief, but the Court declined to grant the requested restraint and directed the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the competent authority.

Section 23 of the HR&CE Act was cited by the respondents as conferring general superintendence and control over temples and religious endowments on the Commissioner.

No precedent was cited, and the Court did not determine the petitioner’s status as a cultivating tenant or the applicability of either statute to the property.

The Court did not resolve the parties’ competing claims concerning ownership, possession, tenancy, or the applicability of the statutory protections.

It held that the petitioner’s grievance should be considered by the concerned authority under the HR&CE Act and observed that the fifth respondent, to whom the earlier objection had been sent, was not the competent authority to consider it.

Accordingly, the Court declined to grant the broad restraint sought and instead directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation or objection to the competent authority, which must consider it after notice to the parties concerned.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation or objection to the competent authority under the HR&CE Act, which was directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders after notifying the concerned parties.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.