Why Temples Should be Freed From Government Control 1,Land Rents Court Washes Off Hands

A clarion call was issued by Sri. Jaggi Vasudev to free the temples from the clutches of the Government.

@SadhguruJVI have requested the TN CM & Opposition Leader to declare their intent with regard to freeing Temples in state control. We cannot preside over decades of neglect & apathy. Amounts to spiritual suicide for Community. –Sg #FreeTNTemples@CMOTamilNadu@EPSTamilNadu@mkstalin. Scroll down for Video.

This has been the desire of Hindus since long. Unfortunately, calling oneself a Hindu is considered to be a blasphemy in the eyes of the Secularists. Self styled Liberals,Rationalists,Secularists .They are the only sane people ,in their view.Rest are Fundamentalists,who do not have a broad vision .And the topic of temple property is enough to raise their hackles and cry Hindutva.

I shall, in a series of articles,explain,how Hinduism is being systematically wiped out, in the garb of Administration and social justice.

1.While Hindu temples are under the control of the Government,Churches and Wakf Boards do not come under Government control.While the temples have to await orders and for funds to exceute a simple task of buying Pooja items,payment of salary to temple workers including Archakas, Churches, Mosques can perform their rituals with no difficulty.The Temple adminstration in Tamil Nadu is run by the HR&CE department. It appoints Executive officers for each temple and in most cases, they are political appointees,though on paper,it is departmental posting.In addition , a local ruling party bigwig is appointed as Thakkar,a Trustee in Major temples in Tamil Nadu, like Meenakshi temple, Madurai,Pazhani Dhandayuthapani temple.In most cases, these people are Atheists.In some cases,the Executive officers,Thakkars belong to Other religions.Exception is Late.PTR.Pazhanivel Rajan, Madurai,Trustee of Madurai Meenakshi temple.Hecwas a devotee of Madurai Meenakshi and he had done yeoman service to the temple,though he was a senior man of DMK,an avowed Anti Hindu party.But these are exceptions.

The government leases temple space for public in a sham of action and in most cases, spaces are allotted to ruling patty members,sympathisers,who, invariably are atheists.They grant leases of spaces, temple lands to party functionaries, sympathizers and people belonging to other religions. Please find out the names of those who have been granted lease in Madurai Meenakshi Amman temple. You will find that majority of them belong to Islam.The same is the position of every temple.

The celebration of Utsavams / temple festivals are to be approved by the Executive Officer,EO.There are instances when the EOs refused to conduct temple festivals, citing some spurious reasons.

Temples are expected to pay revenue to the government on the lands held by them,even if the revenue due to them by those who had taken the lease from the temple,is not paid.

So much so The Adheenams went to court on this issue in 1999 and a judgement was issued in 2007, that the Adheenams should seek redressal from the Government first,before approaching the court.Hiw the Adheenams are expected to run the temples without income is left unsaid.

I am furnishing a judgement relating to this herebelow. I do not have information on the latest position.


DATED : 15/11/2007



Writ Petition No.8408 of 1999

Sri-la-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avargal Adheenakarthar
Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam
and Hereditary Trustee of:

1. Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam

2. Sri Gomuktheeswaraswamy Temple

3. Sri Vadavaranyaeswaraswamy Temple

4. Sri Suyambunathaswamy Temple

5. Sri Akshayanathaswamy Temple

6. Viswanatha Swamy Temple

7. Veezhinathaswamy Temple

8. Sri Mahalingaswamy Temple

9. Sri Mayuranathaswamy Temple

10. Prananathaswamy Temple

11. Athmanathaswamy Temple

12. Akshyanathaswamy Temple

13. Kalyanasundareswaraswamy Temple

14. Neelakanteswaraswamy Temple

15. Banapureeswaraswamy Temple

16. Subramaniaswamy Temple

17. Somanathaswamy Temple

18. Vilappojai Kattalai attached to Manenthiappar Temple

19. Pitchai Kattalai attached to Papanaswamy Temple

20. Udhayamarthandam Kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy Temple

21. Senthil Thiruppani Kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy Temple

22. Senthil Annathana kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy Temple

23. Senthil Visaka Kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy temple

24. Senthil Arutpani Kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy Temple

25. Senthil Pradosha Kattalai
attached to Subramaniaswamy Temple

26. Avudayappa Pillai Kattalai
attached to Meenakshisundareswarar Temple
Madurai. ..Petitioners.


1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by Secretary to Govt.
Dept. of Revenue
Fort St.George
Chennai 9.

2. The District Collector

3. The District Collector

4. The District Collector

5. The District Collector

6. The District Collector

7. The District Collector

8. The District Collector

9. The District Collector

10. The District Collector

11. The District Collector
Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

12. The District Collector

13. The District Collector
Virudhunagar. ..Respondents.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
forbearing the respondents from in any manner collecting the
arrears land revenue upto fasli 1406 for the lands owned by.....For petitioner : Mr.T.Sudhan Raj for Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
For respondents : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Government Advocate

Heard Mr.T.Sudhan Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner/Adheenam is holding vast extent of lands and the income derived from the lands is utilised for the purpose of perpetuation and preservation of its saintly order, maintenance of agamas in temples, chanting of scriptures, daily poojas and conducting festivals etc., and for philanthropic purposes. Though no ceiling had been fixed with regard to the extent of agricultural lands that could be owned by the petitioner/Adheenam, several enactments have been made imposing certain restrictions on the use of such lands. Thus, it was mandated that agricultural lands in excess of 20 standard acres were to be leased out to tenants on yearly basis. The laws had also been enacted providing for the protection of the tenants of such lands and for the constitution of revenue Courts to deal with the disputes arising from such tenancy. However, in course of time, the tenants in the petitioner/Adheenam lands had stopped paying the rent and therefore, the activities of the petitioner/Adheenam were adversely affected. In such circumstances, the petitioner/Adheenam has not been in a position to pay the land revenue as claimed by the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner/Adheenam filed the present writ petition to forbear the respondents from in any manner collecting the arrears of the land revenue upto fasli 1406 for the lands owned by the petitioner/Adheenam.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner/Adheenam has not pursued the remedy of approaching the State Government for the reliefs sought for by the Adheenam, as provided by this Court in W.P.No.1271 of 1985. However, the petitioner/Adheenam had preferred a suit in O.S.No.39 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam, for a direction to restrain the revenue authorities from collecting land revenue from their tenants.

5. A direction had been issued in the said suit by the District Munsif, directing the revenue authorities not to collect the land revenue from their tenants and to collect the land revenue only as per the existing rules. It has also been stated that the petitioner/Adheenam had not allowed the tenants to pay the kist directly to the revenue authorities, even though the tenants were ready to pay the kist amount to the revenue authorities and to adjust it with the rent payable to the petitioner/Adheenam. However, many of the petitioner/Adheenam's tenants have been paying the rents due from them regularly. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner/Adheenam in the present writ petition cannot be countenanced.

6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner/Adheenam, as well as for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the petitioner/Adheenam cannot be granted as the petitioner/Adheenam has not shown sufficient cause or reason to prevent the revenue authorities from initiating the proceedings as provided under law to recover the land revenue due from the petitioner/Adheenam. The allegation of the petitioner/Adheenam that the tenants, who are in occupation of the lands belonging to the petitioner/Adheenam, are not paying the rents has not been substantiated by sufficient proof. Even otherwise, non payment of the rent by the tenant cannot be a sustainable reason for the petitioner/Adheenam to avoid payment of land revenue due from them to the State Government.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner had relied on a decision of this Court made in Dharmapuram Adheenam, Dharmapuram, by its Adheenakarthar Sri la Sri Shanmuga Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal Avargal, Dharmapuram, reported in 1973 Writ L.R 875 (W.P.Nos.7330 and 7336 of 1984), to pray that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the State Government for necessary exemption or abatement from payment of the land revenue.

8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is open to the petitioner/Adheenam to submit a representation to the Tamil Nadu State Government, seeking for exemption or abatement relating to levy of land revenue on the petitioner/Adheenam. On such representation being made by the petitioner/Adheenam, it is expected that the authorities concerned would consider and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

Source. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/417704/g


%d bloggers like this: