1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.10588 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 S.K.Venkattassalapandian : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Devakkottai, Sivaganga District. 2.Athmanaban, S/o.Mayandi Ambalam, South Car Street, Kandadevi Post, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 3.PR.Sornalingam, S/o.Perianan Ambalam, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 4.M.Sornalingam, S/o.Muthuramalingam, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 5.K.Perianan, S/o.Kalimuthu, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 6.S.Karuppaiah Poosari, Mariamman Koil, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 7.K.Selvaraj Poosari, Kaliammai Kovil, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. 8.RM.Jambulingam, S/o.Ramasamy, Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent herein dated 04.10.2010 in A1-9861-2010 and quash the same and also forbearing the first respondent herein from proceeding to conduct the festival of Mariamman Temple in Kandadevi Village, Devakkottai Taluk, Sivaganga District by permitting giving of honours to any particular person till the disposal of O.A.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Board, Sivaganga. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondent 3 : Mr.J.Visvanathan For Respondents 4 to 7: Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondent 8 : Mr.T.S.Sivakumar O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 04.10.2010, by which the first respondent, after conducting a Peace Committee Meeting, has directed that the "first respect" in Kandadevi Mariamman Temple is to be given to the second respondent thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 2. After hearing the arguments of all the respective counsels, it is seen that there are few registered documents to show about the ancestral trustee of the family, which has maintained the said temple. It appears from all the registered documents of the year 1985 that the family originally consisted of three groups, viz., 1. Pothayyan Siravilikudy Servai, S/o.Siravilikutty Servai, 2. Muthiah Servai, S/o.Kulandaivelu Servaikarar and 3.Vellaichamy, S/o.Mayandi Ambalam. 3. It is stated that among the first group of persons, the fourth respondent is the existing son. In respect of the third group of Vellaisamy, the Writ Petitioner, the second respondent and the third respondent are the existing sons and the eighth respondent is the descendant of Muthiah Servai. Among the second group, admittedly, the second respondent is the eldest son. 4. The question, which is raised in this Writ Petition, is that the Revenue Divisional Officer - the first respondent herein, has no jurisdiction to decide about the first respect to be given in the Temple, especially, when the original applications filed under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Act, 1959, [for short "the Act'], are pending before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Department, Sivaganga. However, it is the case of the second respondent that he has been receiving the first respect in the temple in these years and that should be followed as stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. On the face of it, the Revenue Divisional Officer was only directed to conduct the Peace Committee Meeting to arrive at an amicable settlement between the parties. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot decide as to who should be given the first respect, as it is the jurisdiction of the authority constituted under the Act, especially when necessary applications are pending before him. Therefore, I am of the view that till the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Department, Sivaganga, decides the issue, temporary arrangement should be made for the present year of festival, which is stated to come to an end by tomorrow [28.09.2011] and for which the first respect is to be given today. It is stated that the honour is in the form of giving Viboothi [sacred-ash] by concerned priest of the temple. Admittedly, the said temple consists of many priests and the sixth respondent herein is also one of the poosari. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. Accordingly, based on the above said genealogy, which is of course disputed by the second respondent, the correctness is to be decided by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Deparment, Sivaganga, in the order to be passed by him. Pending the same, the honour [first respect] today shall be given in the following manner:- The following group of persons, viz., 1. The fourth respondent - M.Sornalingam, S/o.Muthuramalingam, 2. second group – a).Athmanathan, S/o.Mayandi Ambalam, b). PR.Sornalingam, S/o.Perianan Ambalam, c).S.K.Venkattassalapandian, S/o.Late Muthaiah Srinivasan 3. Third group – R.M.Jambulingam, S/o.Ramasamy shall be granted Viboothi [sacred-ash] and Prasatham simultaneously by the priests of the temple, and thereafter, prasatham shall be distributed to other devotees. It is made clear that this is only a temporary arrangement for this year's festival. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Sivaganga, is directed to dispose of O.A.Nos.2 of 2001 and 3 of 2011 or any other applications which will be filed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the parties. It is needless to say that the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Sivaganga, shall decide the issue independently without being influenced either by the order of this Court or by the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein. It is also made clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall be present in the premises of the temple to avoid any law and order situation along with necessary police protection. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.10.2010 stands set aside and the Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Devakkottai, Sivaganga District. 2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Sivaganga. +1CC TO M/S.T.V.SIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR. 33295 +1CC TO M/S.R.SUNDAR SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE SR.33275 NB : SR : 27.09.2011 : 3p/5c ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.10588 of 2011 27.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/