The Madras High Court held that only the deity’s name may be entered in revenue records for temple property, setting aside a Commissioner of Land Administration order that named the hereditary trustee.

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that the name of a temple deity alone should be recorded in revenue records concerning temple property, and not the name of its manager, hereditary trustee or priest.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu relied on a Supreme Court judgment which held that the deity's name alone should be entered in revenue records, with a limited exception permitting the names of Poojaris who perform religious functions and cultivate the land to be mentioned in the remarks column.

The Court set aside the direction of the Commissioner of Land Administration to record the deity's name as represented by its hereditary trustee.

It also held that the classification 'Natham Private' was not recognised under the Revenue Standing Order and directed that the land be classified as 'Natham' in the name of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar.

The Court further directed the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Tamil Nadu, to issue necessary executive instructions for implementing the Supreme Court's ruling and ensure corresponding corrections in revenue records.

The order was passed on a petition filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, Palayamkottai, challenging proceedings dated July 22, 2026, issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration.

Court rejects objection to maintainability, invokes parens patriae jurisdiction

A preliminary objection was raised by the fifth respondent, S. Kanthiah alias Radhakrishnan, described in the proceedings as the hereditary trustee of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayakar Temple. He questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by the Executive Officer of another temple.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was also under the control and management of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil and had been representing the deity.

Rejecting the objection, Justice Kumaresh Babu observed: "This Court would also have to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in respect of a Deity, which is always considered to be a minor."

Supreme Court ruling requires deity's name alone in revenue records

The Court noted that the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had issued a circular based on a Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti.

Referring to the ruling, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court had categorically held that the name of the deity alone should be entered in revenue records, rather than the name of its manager or priest. It had, however, permitted the names of Poojaris who perform their functions and cultivate the land to be mentioned in the remarks column.

The High Court held that the Commissioner's direction to record the deity's name represented by its hereditary trustee was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

It also rejected the contention that the ruling could not be implemented in the absence of executive instructions from the Revenue Department.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court's judgment constituted the law of the land and had to be applied even without corresponding executive instructions or amendments to the statute and rules.

'Natham Private' classification not recognised

The High Court further held that the classification 'Natham Private' was not recognised under the Revenue Standing Order.

It directed that the land be classified as 'Natham' and recorded in the name of the deity, Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar.

Before parting with the matter, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had envisaged executive instructions to supplement the existing statutes and rules, but the Tamil Nadu Revenue Department had not issued them.

It accordingly directed the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, to issue necessary instructions and ensure that revenue authorities make corrections in accordance with paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court judgment.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Case Title: Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil v Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors.

Tags: