Ayyar v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7960 and 7962 of 2026 Ayyar ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Thailshar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.

5.Jeyaraman ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Moo.Mu.No.290/2025/C3 and quash 1/4

the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein to restrain the respondent no. 5 and his associates from carrying out any construction/renovation work in the temple namely Arulmigu Otchantammal Temple comprised in Sur. No. 149/5 situated at, P. Kanniyampatti Village, Perumanganallur, Sedapttai Sub Division, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District in accordance with law. For Petitioner :Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For R1 to R3 :Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R4 :Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) *****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.01.2026 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner's application seeking to restrain the fifth respondent from carrying out renovation works in Arulmigu Otchantammal Temple, comprised in Survey No.149/5, situated at P. Kanniyampatti Village, Perumanganallur, Sedapatti Sub-Division, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, came to be rejected.

2. Admittedly, the said temple is a private temple, and the question as to whether the petitioner and his family members are the owners thereof involves disputed questions of fact. In such circumstances, the 2/4

third respondent has rightly relegated the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court for adjudication of his claim. This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the third respondent.

3. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

4. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index :Yes / No 10.04.2026 NCC :Yes / No cmr To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Thailshar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.

3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr 10.04.2026 4/4