T.R.Ramalingasamy vs. The District Collector

Facts

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging an order dated 10.06.2023 by the District Collector, Thanjavur. The petitioner objected to the construction of a Direct Paddy Procurement Centre by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) on land identified as S.No. 87/8 in Palamputhur Village. The petitioner contended that this land belongs to the Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The respondents included the District Collector, Block Development Officer, the Executive Officer of the temple, the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, and the TNCSC. The TNCSC was impleaded suo motu. The court noted the petitioner's lack of locus standi as a 'person having interest' under the TN HR & CE Act, but proceeded to examine the matter in its capacity as parens patriae for temples.

Held

The Court held that the PIL petitioner lacked the locus standi to file the petition as a 'person having interest' under Section 6(15) of the TN HR & CE Act. However, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction over temples, the Court proceeded to examine the merits. It was definitively held that the land in question (S.No. 87/8) does not belong to the temple; it vests in the Government and is classified as 'Government Poramboke, Punjai tharisu'. The land was also not a water body. While the Court noted the third respondent's representation regarding potential inconvenience to worshippers, it recorded the State counsel's submission that construction would not obstruct temple car circumambulation or affect the adjoining tank. The Court requested the District Collector to consider the representation concerning inconvenience to worshippers and to conduct a spot visit, making a decision by 18.12.2023. The construction by TNCSC was ordered to be put on hold until the Collector's decision. The Court emphasized that the Collector should balance the interests of both the temple and the procurement centre, as both are public-centric. The final decision on further construction or an alternate site would depend on the Collector's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the PIL petitioner has the locus standi to file the petition as a 'person having interest' under Section 6(15) of the TN HR & CE Act, and whether the State counsel's challenge to the petitioner's locus as a non-resident of the village is valid? 2. Does the land in question (S.No. 87/8) belong to the Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple, and is it a water body? 3. Will the construction of the procurement centre cause inconvenience to temple worshippers or obstruct temple car circumambulation? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the land belongs to the temple and therefore construction should not proceed. The petitioner's locus standi was implicitly asserted by filing the PIL. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel argued that the petitioner lacks locus standi. They also submitted that the land vests in the Government, not the temple, and is classified as 'Government Poramboke, Punjai tharisu'. The State counsel further submitted that the construction will not obstruct temple car circumambulation or affect the adjoining tank, and that an advertisement for objections on 01.07.2022 received no objections.