A.Ramalinga Gounder v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI 1.A.Ramalinga Gounder 2.J.Vijayakumar Gounder 3.S.Jegadeesan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur Revenue Division, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Viralimalai.
4.Adaikka Gounder ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records comprised in impugned peace committee meeting minutes dated 12.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant necessary permission and protection to conduct the village temple festival of Sri Mariamman Temple situated 1/7
in Poyyamani Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District, scheduled to be held on 25.05.2025 to 05.06.2025 as per Rights and Customs of the Village people.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan For R1 & R2 : Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution passed in a peace committee meeting, in and by which, the petitioner was prohibited from conducting the temple festival. 2.Time and again, this Court has reiterated that there is no statutory provision enabling the Tahsildar to conduct a peace committee meeting and that the decisions taken in a peace committee meeting lack statutory value or force. However, since the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities are responsible for maintaining law and order, whenever any problem arise, they convene a meeting of all the stakeholders and endeavour to find an amicable solution. Therefore, this action of the authorities cannot be entirely 2/7
found fault with. At the same time, this cannot be allowed to be conducted as a Kangaroo Court akin to katta panchayats conducted by local musclemen or local politicians, as a threat to the democratic polity and the performance of the fundamental role of the judiciary. 3.Some of the observations made by this Court in this regard are recorded infra.
i) In Pinniyakkal v. District Collector, Madurai and Others [WP(MD)No.9704 of 2007, dated 01.09.2008], Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, has held as follows:- "8.The peace meeting was convened on the plea that there was a disturbance to peace and that a law and order situation had arisen. Neither in the minutes nor in the notice convening the peace meeting, no reference to any legal provision has been made. Even assuming such meeting was convened by the powers vested on him under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by which the Tahsildar was empowered to be an Executive Magistrate, but in the guise of exercising such magisterial powers under CrPC, the third respondent cannot override the rights of parties. No provisions of the CrPC authorises the Executive Magistrate to make such decision as had been made in the present case. ..." 3/7
ii) In Arulmighu Balagurunathasamy Sametha Angala Parameswari Amman Thirukovil v. Assistant Commissioner, HR CE Department and Others [MANU/TN/2835/2017], Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian, has held as follows:- "20.In order to find out the legal basis or the statutory power under which the so-called Peace Committee Meetings were held by the Revenue officials, I requested the learned Additional Advocate General to point out any specific Statutory provision or Rule which enables the Authorities to conduct Peace Committee Meetings and thrust their decisions on the participants. He would fairly submit that there is no such Statutory power either under any of the Statutes or under the Rules, which enable the Authorities to conduct such Peace Committee Meetings.
It is common knowledge that such Peace Committee Meetings are often used as a tool to thrust the decision of the Revenue Authorities on the participants. Therefore, the convening of Peace Committee Meetings and the failure to reach an amicable solution cannot be a ground to take over of the management of the Temple from the persons belonging to a Religious Denomination to whom the Temple has been declared to belong."
4/7
iii) In Manikandan v. Tahsildar, Thirumayam and Another [WP(MD)No.10860 of 2022, dated 07.06.2022], Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.R.Swaminathan, has held as follows:- "4.It is well settled that the peace meeting convened by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer are only to ensure the maintenance of law and order and public tranquillity. Those proceedings have no legal sanctity as such. ..." 4.On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the second respondent has prohibited the petitioner from conducting the temple festival based on a civil suit filed by the fourth respondent. It appears that the fourth respondent has filed a civil suit and has also lost the same. Even then, such a decision has been taken by the Tahsildar, which could not be countenanced.
5.Therefore, the order impugned is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the festival. The respondent officials shall ensure that nobody is prevented from participating in the festival and offer their prayers / offerings. It is open to the fourth respondent either to participate in the festival or not.
5/7
6.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
11.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes gns Note: Issue order copy on 13.06.2025 To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illuppur Revenue Division, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Viralimalai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
B.PUGALENDHI,J gns 11.06.2025 7/7