R.Muruganantham v. The Joint Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI R.Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Nagapattinam District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Executive Officer, Sri Sounthareswarar Temple, Pettai, Muthupettai, Thiruvarur District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to fix the fair rent or lease of the property bearing S.No.209 extent of 0.72 cents situated at Chettiyar Garden, Sanathi Street, Pettai Village, Muthupetai Taluk, Thiruvarur District owned by 3rd respondent Temple in pursuant to petitioner representation dated 04.08.2025 and consequently fix the time frame to dispose the representation.
Page No.1 of 4
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate *****
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the fair rent or lease of the land owned by the 3rd respondent-temple.
2. Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. According to the petitioner, he was granted permission by the 3rd respondent-temple to plant trees in a piece of land owned by the temple. According to him, he took efforts to clear the bushes and planted coconut trees. He has further stated in the affidavit that he had put-up fence and even got electricity connection using his own funds. Now, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the HR & CE Department to fix a fair rent or to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner.
4. This writ petition is highly misconceived. The petitioner has stated in Page No.2 of 4
his affidavit that he was only permitted to use a piece of land belonging to the 3rd respondent-temple. Though the petitioner has produced a certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the temple, the said certificate has no value in the eye of law, because it is not known under what circumstances and for what purpose, such a certificate was issued to him. Merely because a certificate was issued to the petitioner, that would not elevate the steps of the petitioner to either that of a tenant or lessee. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 23.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Nagapattinam District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvarur District. Page No.3 of 4
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp 3.The Executive Officer, Sri Sounthareswarar Temple, Pettai, Muthupettai, Thiruvarur District.
23.09.2025 Page No.4 of 4