P.Pandi @ Pandiyaraj v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER P.Pandi @ Pandiyaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Patta in the name of Sri Kannimar Temple in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.379, to an extent of 6 Acres and 40 Cents situated at Siddharkalnatham Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. Page No. 1 of 6

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marichamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of Sri Kannimar Temple in respect of the property comprised in Survey No. 379, to an extent of 6 acres and 40 cents, situated at Siddharkalnatham Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the hereditary priest of Sri Kannimar Temple and that the subject property belongs to the said temple. The petitioner's ancestor, namely Perumal Naicker, executed a Page No. 2 of 6

Settlement Deed dated 22.04.1929 dedicating the land exclusively for temple worship. Owing to financial hardship, financial assistance was sought from one Rathinasamy, who insisted that the land be temporarily registered in his name for the purpose of performing temple pooja and accordingly a Sale Deed dated 13.11.1972 was executed in his favour. As the said Rathinasamy failed to provide the promised assistance, he reconveyed the land on 15.01.1973 to the descendants of Perumal Naicker. Thereafter, the temple worship was continued uninterrupted by the Perumal Naidu family.

4. After the death of the said Rathinasamy Nadar, his legal heirs created certain partition and sale deeds between the years 2008 and 2018, thereby illegally alienating the temple property. Subsequently, recognising the illegality, the property was conveyed back in favour of Sri Kannimar Temple through a Sale Deed dated 22.04.2024 executed by one A.Udhayakumar and through another Sale Deed dated 22.05.2025 executed by one Periyalingam.

5. Thereafter, on 01.12.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents seeking issuance of patta in the name of Page No. 3 of 6

the temple. The third respondent, vide communication dated 18.12.2025, directed the fourth respondent to take appropriate action. However, no action has been taken till date. On 22.12.2025, during the Grievance Day meeting, the petitioner submitted a further representation to the first respondent, which also evoked no response. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the fourth respondent within a period of sixteen weeks.

7. Recording the above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Page No. 4 of 6

and any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision, before passing any order. There shall be no order as to costs. [K.SURENDER, J.] 24.02.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

Page No. 5 of 6

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 24.02.2026 Page No. 6 of 6