Ganesan v. The Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY REV. APLW.(MD)No.174 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.19498 of 2025 1.Ganesan 2.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioners vs.
1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul District.
3.The District Registrar, Registration Dpartment, Palani, Dindigul District.
4.The Sub Registrar, Ottanchatiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Ottanchatiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
... Respondents 1/5
PRAYER : Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Section 114 of C.P.C. to review as against the order made in W.P.(MD).No.10685 of 2024, dated 26.06.2025, by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.A.Oliraja Government Advocate
ORDER
The review application is filed against the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in W.P.(MD).No.10685 of 2024.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present review application is filed seeking to delete the portion of the order wherein, liberty was granted to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, who were arrayed as Respondents 1 and 2, to challenge the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, if aggrieved and if so advised. The contention of the petitioner is that the subject property is not Temple property and it is inam property, which was abolished way back.
3.After elaborate argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Temple properties ought to be protected. In case even though the temple attended the settlement Thasildar proceedings, if they are aggrieved, they have every right to prefer an appeal. All 2/5
these years, temple properties were not protected by the concerned authorities. Therefore, this Court in order to protect such a right, has given the said observation and therefore, that cannot be removed. 4.Hence, this review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.09.2025 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes/No vsg 3/5
To:
1. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul District.
3.The District Registrar, Registration Dpartment, Palani, Dindigul District.
4.The Sub Registrar, Ottanchatiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
5.The District Revenue Officer, Ottanchatiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY, J.
vsg REV. APLW.(MD)No.174 of 2025 22.09.2025 5/5