HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W. P.(MD)No.34090 of 2025and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26930 and 26931 of 2025 T.R.Ramesh … Petitioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.11.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W. P.(MD)No.34090 of 2025and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.26930 and 26931 of 2025
T.R.Ramesh … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Board of Trustees,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul – 624 601.
4.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple,
Palani, Dindigul – 624 601. … Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to G.O.
(Ms.)No.321 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E.5-1) Department, dated 26.12.2022 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan (R1 & R2) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.K.Sriram (R3 & R4)
senior counsel for Mr.Bharanidharan
and Mr.R.Murali

ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The challenge is to G.O.Ms.No.321, Tourism, Culture and
Religious and Endowments (R.E.5-1) dated 26.12.2022.
2.The Government Order touches upon the acquisition of certain lands to house infrastructural facilities for the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani.
3.On the aspect of maintainability and when the question of
laches was pointed out, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that the petitioner had come to know about the impugned Government Order and the manner by which the same was proposed to be implemented, only recently.
4.We are satisfied with the same and thus the question of
maintainability does not arise.
5.We are given to understand that there is a Special Bench,
which has been constituted to hear the issues relating to the upkeep of Giriveedhi in Palani temple. There is a series of orders passed from time to time.
6.Our attention is drawn to the order passed by that Bench on 25.04.2025. At the outset, it is pointed out that the observation at paragraph No.3 of that order to the effect that ‘the temple had already deposited the entire amount of Rs.58,54,63,724/- for the said project’, is not correct as no such deposit has been made. We record the same.
7.As far as acquisition is concerned, 58 acres of land have been
acquired in order to re-settle those occupants of the Giriveedhi, who have now been removed. The compensation payable to the persons from whom land has been acquired, cannot, and must not be delayed on account of the litigation inter se the temple and authorities.
8.However, under the impugned Government Order, the
Government makes it clear that the title to the 58 acres vests with the State, as there is no enabling mechanism by which acquisition proceedings could have been carried out by the State in favour of the temple. In this context, the petitioner would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Chanda Sharma vs. Devendra
Kumar Sharma and others [2025 INSC 700].
9.One of the issues that arose in the above matter related to the
utilisation of temple funds for acquisition of land in accordance with a Scheme that had been proposed for development around the Banke Bihari Temple. The Scheme came to be amended by the Court, such that the temple funds were permitted to be utilised to purchase the land around the temple ‘provided that the land so acquired shall be in the name of the deity/trust’. Having regard to the above direction, it appears that only the State must settle the amount of compensation to the persons from whom land has been acquired, subject to the final decision in the writ petition.
10.We are given to understand that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of the Uttar Pradesh does not contain a provision analogous to Sections 92 & 96 under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act). Thus, one of the legal issues that would arise for consideration in the present case would relate to the legitimate purpose for which the collections made under Section 92/Fund under Section 96 of the Act, may be deployed.
11. Place this writ petition along with Cont.P.No.1617 of 2018
before the Special Bench.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
26.11.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Board of Trustees,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul – 624 601.
4.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul – 624 601.  
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ta
W.P.(MD)No.34090 of 2025
26.11.2025