Govindaraj v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.(Crl.) No.188 of 2025 and W.P.M.P.(Crl.) Nos.91 and 92 of 2025 Govindaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector

2. The Superintendent of Police Pudupakkam,

3. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments HR and CE Department Head Office No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road Thousand Lights West, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tittakudi

5. The Inspector of Police Veppur

6. The Tahsildhar Veppur Taluk

7. Ramasamy

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 6th respondent Na.Ka.C1/220/2025 dated 07.05.2025 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Govindarajan For Respondents 1,2, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) For 7th Respondent : Mr.K.Raju

O R D E R

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent/Tahsildhar in e/f/rp1/220/2025 dated 07.05.2025 and to quash the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a case is pending between the parties before the Civil Court with reference to title

dispute. While so, the 7th respondent had approached this Court seeking direction to the Tahsildar to pass a resolution or order pursuant to the peace meeting held on 18.09.2024 vide Na.Ka.AA1-819-2023 dated 16.09.2024, with regard to construction of Temple to be constructed in Patta land and for police protection during construction of Temple. In which, this Court gave a direction to the Tahsildhar to consider the representation of the petitioner therein/7th respondent herein and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, after giving opportunity of hearing of both the parties.

The Tahsildar/6th respondent misunderstood the said order and as if he is the sole authority to grant permission, passed the impugned order granting permission to the 7th respondent herein to construct Temple in the private land. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, if any party wants to construct a Temple, they have to approach Collector in the particular District and only after obtaining prior permission from the District Collector, a Temple can be constructed.

construct a Temple, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is liable to be quashed.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. Admittedly, the Tahsildhar has no authority to grant any permission to construct a Temple and it is only the District Collector who can grant permission to use a site as a public worshipping place or a religious purpose site. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent/Tahsildhar is without any authority.

5. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 6th respondent/Tahsildhar dated 07.05.2025 is quashed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Criminal) is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

7. However, the 7th respondent is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

18.07.2025 ksa-2 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

To

1. The District Collector

2. The Superintendent of Police Pudupakkam

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tittakudi

4. The Inspector of Police Veppur

5. The Tahsildhar Veppur Taluk 6.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai

P.VELMURUGAN,J.

ksa-2 18.07.2025