K.Devaraj vs The District Collector & Ors.

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order

No.Na.Ka.4705/2017/A4, dated 06.10.2017 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent

to open the temple and make it to be used by the villagers.

By consent of both sides, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

The petitioner claimed that he is the resident of the village concerned for seven generations and the land in dispute belongs to his great

grandfather. A temple was built in the said land by name Dhrowpathi Amman temple and thereafter it was worshiped by all the villagers.

Thereafter, the temple was taken over under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Department and the great grandfather of

the petitioner was given the post of Dharmakartha as he had given the lands for the purpose of constructing the temple.

It is further claimed by the petitioner that on 02.04.1982, the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR&CE, Coimbatore has passed an order in

favour of the grandfather of the petitioner that he can conduct poojas and other rituals and thereafter his family members for generations after

generations.. The temple is being maintained from the income generated from the temple and the nearby lands situated beside the temple to the

extent of 6.54 acres. After the death of the great grandfather of the petitioner, the petitioner''s father took control of the said temple and thereafter

the petitioner started cultivating the said land and also taken control of the temple.

It is further claimed by the petitioner that on 07.07.2017, some local persons viz.,Thangavel, Sellieshwaran and Rasu of the village entered into

the temple with rowdy elements and had started threatening the villagers, who came to worship in the temple and thereafter the abovesaid persons

assaulted the petitioner and warned the petitioner that he should stop all the temple activities immediately. Due to the said incident, the temple was

locked up and it was reported to the police. Thereafter, the temple was not opened and the villagers were not able to worship the god.

It is further claimed by the petitioner that a complaint was lodged on 01.08.2017. However, the police has not taken any action so far in

opening the temple. The petitioner also filed a Crl.O.P.No.19717 of 2017 for registering the complaint against the said persons and this Court by

an order dated 20.09.2017 directed to register the complaint dated 07.08.2017. Only in that circumstances, the second respondent has passed an

order on 06.10.2017, whereby an interim arrangement has been made by giving certain directions to the petitioner and to the other parties.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader for 3rd respondent.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the second respondent, it discloses that on 06.10.2017, the second respondent

conducted a peace meeting, where, in the presence of second respondent and in the presence of the Inspector of HR&CE Department,

participated the ''A'' group people headed by the petitioner and the ''B'' group people headed by one Thangavel and Sellieshwaran participated in

the peace meeting and after having completed the peace meeting, it was unanimously decided by all parties concerned in the meeting to co-operate

with the authorities . Accordingly, the second respondent had issued certain directions.

According to the second respondent, that the ''A'' group i.e. Petitioner''s group can approach the Civil Court or HR&CE Department to

establish his right. Until a decision is taken, the ''A'' group people shall not involve in any agricultural activities on the land belong to the temple. In

the meanwhile, for the performance of the poojas at the temple, a common person to be selected by the entire village people, would perform the

poojas. This arrangement has been made by the second respondent on a temporary basis till a final decision is taken by the Court of Law on the

suit/petition, said to have been filed and pending.

Since two groups claim the right over administering of the temple including performing of poojas, there is likelyhood of arising Law and Order

problem, hence, the second respondent has taken action in accordance with the power conferred on him and accordingly he conducted the peace

committee meeting, where both ''A'' and ''B'' groups participated and some amicable decision seems to have been taken, which reflected in the

order dated 06.10.2017. The second respondent has directed all the parties to approach the competent Civil Court or HR&CE Department to

prove their right over the temple. In the meanwhile, inorder to perform poojas at the temple, it was also directed by the second respondent that a

common person unobjectionable to both ''A'' and ''B'' groups to be selected by the village people, who can be put into the service and he can

perform the poojas till a final solution is arrived at in pending litigation or litigation to be instituted or initiated by either of the groups before the

competent Civil Court or before the HR&CE Department.

On seeing the said order which is impugned herein, I am of the view that this impugned order is only an interim arrangement in view of the

likelyhood of arising of any Law and Order problem in the locality. As in the name of god, no one can take the law in their hand and be a route

cause for deterioration of the same which would ultimately affect the public peace in the locality. Only to avoid such unforseen situations, the

second respondent herein has exercised his power and made a reasonable interim arrangement, which, in the opinion of this Court, requires no

interference.

Since a liberty is always available with both the petitioner and his group as well as the opponent group, who can establish their right by

approaching the competent Civil Court or HR&CE department and such arrangements can be made permanently only by the Court of Law or by

the HR&CE Department, this interim arrangement of performing poojas by a common person to be identified by the village people is absolutely

necessary one. Therefore, such arrangement can also not to be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no plausible reason to interfere with the said order of the second respondent, which is

impugned herein. Accordingly, this writ petition fails. However, as directed by the second respondent, it is open to the petitioner to approach the

HR&CE Department to establish his right. Once, if such petition is made by the petitioner or his group to the HR&CE Department, they shall have

an enquiry on that and take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner, in order to avoid further unpleasantness.

With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also closed.