1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.12120 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2011 1. E.Madhavan Nair 2. A.K.Sasidharan Nair 3. P.Sreedharan Nair 4. K.Kochappan Pillai ...Petitioners Versus 1. The Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Chennai. 2. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Tirunelveli. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Nagercoil. 4. The Executive Officer, A/m.Esakkiamman Temple, Muppandai, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent dated 22.03.2011 passed in R.C.No.61629 of 2010/D2 (A.P.No.31 of 2011) and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to record the petitioners as hereditary trustees of Arulmigu Eswarakala Boothathan Temple, Alappancode, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anadhavalli For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader For R – 4 : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth for M/s. G.R. Swaminathan O R D E R A Temple by name Arulmigu Eswarakala Boothathan Temple, Alappancode, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District was declared as a Temple that is to be administered by a set of hereditary trustees. It was declared so by an order, dated 28.09.1981 in O.A.No.36 of 1979 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R and C.E Department. The hereditary trustees are to be drawn from four Tarawads, with one person drawn from each Tarawad. 2. When the members of the Tarawad filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 1991 under Section 54(1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioners to go before the civil Court. 3. Accordingly the petitioners filed O.S.No.88 of 2004. But the same was dismissed by a judgment, dated 03.08.2006. The petitioners filed an appeal in A.S.No.126 of 2006. During the pendency of the first appeal, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 members of the families of the four Tarawads entered into a memo of compromise on 15.04.2009. Due to the objection of the Executive Officer, the appellate Court has not so far passed any orders on the compromise memo. Now a period of about 2 years and 7 months has elapsed. 4. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application before the second respondent. It was dismissed citing the pendency of the civil case. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, forcing the petitioners to be present before this Court. 5. Heard Ms.J.Anadhavalli, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. 6. The only objection of the fourth respondent is that without getting orders from the civil Court on the basis of the compromise memo, the petitioners have approached this Court. But the grievance of the petitioners is that when the parties have compromised the matter, the Executive Officer has no right to stop the civil Court from passing an order on the basis of the compromise memo. Therefore, I am of the view that the Writ Petition could be disposed of with certain conditions:-  Accordingly, it is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to temporarily record the petitioners as the hereditary trustees of the Temple, on the basis of the compromise memo filed. The first Appellate Court is directed to dispose of A.S.No.126 of 2006 on the basis of the compromise memo after carefully considering the objections of the Executive Officer, within a period of three months. If the compromise memo is accepted by the civil Court and an order is passed, the temporary recognition of the petitioners as hereditary trustees will stand confirmed. But, if the civil Court takes a different view, the recognition of the petitioners, will ultimately have to abide by the decision of the Civil Court. But till the civil Court passes final orders the petitioners will act as hereditary trustees and the Executive Officer shall not interfere. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T and P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ps To 1. The Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Chennai. 2. The Joint Commissioner, H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Tirunelveli. 3. The Assistant Commissioner,H.R. And C.E. (Admn.) Department, Nagercoil. 4. The Executive Officer, A/m.Esakkiamman Temple, Muppandai,Kanyakumari District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 43600: 1CC TO MR. G.R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 43733: DM::2011:DECEMBER:15:: W.P(MD)No.12120 of 2011 2P:7C:: 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/