Kathar Oli v. The Takkar / Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)Nos.35240, 35241, 35242, 35243, 35244, 35245, 35246, 35247, 35248, 35249, 35250, 35251 and 35252 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.27943, 27947, 27948, 27946, 27951, 27960, 27961, 27958, 27959,27952, 27957, 27945, 27950 and 27953 of 2025 W.P(MD).No.35240 of 2025 Kathar Oli W.P(MD).No.35241 of 2025 Mohamed Thoufik 1/10

W.P(MD).No.35242 of 2025 Ahamed Akbar @ Ahamed Ali W.P(MD).No.35243 of 2025 Sheik Meeran 2/10

W.P(MD).No.35244 of 2025 Prasanna Kumar W.P(MD).No.35245 of 2025 Ganesan W.P(MD).No.35246 of 2025 Marimuthu 3/10

W.P(MD).No.35247 of 2025 Ramesh @ Rama Pandian W.P(MD).No.35248 of 2025 Gnanasekar 4/10

W.P(MD).No.35249 of 2025 Mathana Gopal W.P(MD).No.35250 of 2025 Thangaraj 5/10

W.P(MD).No.35251 of 2025 Thangaraj W.P(MD).No.35252 of 2025 Madhan Sayubu In all petitions For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Bharanidharan 6/10

COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned notice dated 01.12.2025, these writ petitions are filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject properties belonged to a private party, from whom/ the original owner, the subject properties were leased out to the petitioners orally and no document and evidence is available in this regard. Under this circumstance, without any authority, the respondent/ temple issued the impugned notice to the petitioners to vacate their possession in the subject property. In terms of the said notice, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal, the respondents are making an attempt to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the above petitions.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /temple would submit that the subject properties are the temple properties. The petitioners are the encroachers, without having any title. Subsequent to the notice, all the encroachments have to be removed.

7/10

4. Heard the submissions made by the petitioners as well as the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. In the present case, challenge was made against the notice issued by the respondent directing the petitioners to hand over their possession of the subject property to Arulmighu Dhandapani Swamy Madam, where the petitioners said to have occupied the subject properties unauthorizedly. The petitioners alleged that the subject properties are the private properties and they are the lessees of the original owner/ private party. However, no document and evidence has been produced in this regard. On the other hand, the respondent would assert that the property belongs to the temple, as evidenced by the revenue records standing in the name of the Mutt. It is admitted that the eviction process has already been completed. Since the eviction process have already been completed, the prayer sought for in these writ petitions has become infructuous. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil Court to establish their rights over the subject properties, if any.

8/10

6. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners as stated supra. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 09.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Rmk To 9/10

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

Rmk W.P.(MD)Nos.35240, 35241, 35242, 35243, 35244, 35245, 35246, 35247, 35248, 35249, 35250, 35251 and 35252 of 2025 09.12.2025 10/10