P. Karthikeyan vs The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajagopal and Thontilingam Chettiar

D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.—Both the Petitioner and the Respondents 8 to 12 in W.P.(MD). No. 362 of 2011 belong to 24 Manai Telugu Chettiar Community. Both of them claim right over the temples by name Arulmigu Sri Siddanatha Samedha Angalaparameshwari Temple and Varavanai Arulmigu Angalaparameshwari Temple at Varavanai, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. Admittedly, both of them filed civil suits, namely O.S. No. 234 of 2009 by the Petitioner and O.S. No. 92 of 2010 by the 8th Respondent on the file of District Munsif, Kulithalai. Both of them were not able to get any interim order from the civil Court.

The fact is that the original temple is demolished and now there exists a makeshift temple after demolition of the then existing structure. Both of them want to construct a new temple. In these circumstances, both the aforesaid suits are filed. When the Petitioner sought to perform Bhoomi Pooja for construction of new temple on 04.06.2010, the third Respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dated 03.06.2010 preventing the Petitioner from performing Bhoomi Pooja on the ground that as there exists some law and order problem. The said order is sought to be quashed in W.P.(MD). No. 9143 of 2010.

Thereafter, a dispute arose with regard to performing of pooja in the makeshift temple, which resulted in closing of the makeshift temple and the key is now with the sixth Respondent/the Village Administrative Officer. Both sides claim that they have right to perform poojas in the makeshift temple and one is opposing the right of other.

In these circumstances, W.P.(MD). No. 362 of 2011 was filed by the same group of persons, who filed W.P.(MD). No. 9143 of 2010, claiming their right to perform poojas in the makeshift temple. This Court passed an order on 11.01.2011 in M.P.(MD). No. 1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD). No. 362 of 2011 directing the Government authorities not to hand over the key to the private Respondents. Thereafter, when Mahasivarathiri festival came in March 11, 2011, an attempt was made for performing poojas during Mahasivarathiri festival, but there was no consensus. Hence, a detailed order was passed by this Court on 22.02.2011 for opening the makeshift temple for darshan to the devotees during Mahasivarathiri and both parties were not permitted to conduct poojas. It was made clear in the said order that the key of the temple could be kept by the sixth Respondent.

The Petitioner in W.P.(MD). No. 362 of 2011 earlier filed W.P.(MD). No. 6740 of 2010 to forbear the Government authorities from interfering with the rights of the poojas. This Court taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid civil suits directed the Petitioner and private Respondents to resolve the dispute in the civil Court. Police authorities were directed not to interfere in a civil dispute. Para 4 of the order is incorporated hereunder:

Considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that the parties are before the civil Court agitating their respective rights, and the matter is seized of by the Civil Court. When the suits are pending, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction. However, it is needless to state that the Respondents 3 and 4 cannot interfere in a civil dispute. In any event, since the F.I.R in Crime No. 105 of 2010 has already been registered, it would be appropriate for the police to investigate and file Final Report in the said matter.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petitions, taking note of the order in W.P.(MD). No. 6740 of 2010 and the pendency of the two suits filed by both sides and the parties are directed to resolve the dispute in the civil Court. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. It is made clear that since the order dated 03.06.2010 of the third Respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer is in operation, both parties could not proceed with the construction of new temple without getting appropriate order from the civil Court. It is also made clear that unless getting appropriate orders from the civil Court, the makeshift temple could not also be opened and poojas could not be performed and key should be kept with the sixth Respondent/the Village Administrative officer, a neutral person. Consequently, the contempt petition is closed and connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.