The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that revenue records relating to temple property must carry the name of the deity alone and not mention the hereditary trustee as its representative. The Court held that recording a deity's name through its manager or trustee would be inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order on November 3, 2026, while hearing a writ petition filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, Palayamkottai, challenging proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration on July 22, 2026.
Background
The dispute concerned land belonging to Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil. The Commissioner of Land Administration had directed that the revenue records be mutated in the name of the temple represented by its hereditary trustee, the fifth respondent, S. Kanthiah @ Radhakrishnan.
The petitioner challenged this direction and sought correction of the revenue records, along with issuance of patta in the name of the deity. However, the fifth respondent questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the Executive Officer of another temple could not challenge the proceedings.
The High Court examined the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021, which clarified that the deity's name alone should appear in revenue records instead of the name of its manager or priest. However, Poojaris performing religious duties and cultivating the land could have their names mentioned in the remarks column.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling, Justice Kumaresh Babu observed:
"The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had categorically held that in the revenue records, the name of the Deity alone should be entered and not the name of the Manager or that of the Priest is required to be mentioned. However, an exception was made in respect of Poojaris performing their functions and cultivating the land to have their names entered in the remarks column. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also envisaged issuance of executive instructions to be issued and to be supplemented in the Statute and Rules thereafter."
Rejecting the fifth respondent's objection, the High Court held that the petitioner was representing the deity and that the Court could exercise parens patriae jurisdiction, under which it protects the interests of those legally considered incapable of protecting themselves.
The Court explained:
"As regards the objections against by the petitioner, it is to be noted that the petitioner had been representing a Deity by name, Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar and in this regard, the objection raised by the 5th respondent, as to the maintainability of this Writ Petition, is unable to be sustained, as this Court would also have to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in respect of a Deity, which is always considered to be a minor."
The Court also clarified that the absence of executive instructions from the Revenue Department could not prevent the implementation of the Supreme Court's ruling.
It observed:
"The Apex Court judgment, which is a law of the land where, the name of Deity alone has been directed to be required and that even in the absence of an executive instruction and a law, the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would also have to be equally applied."
Accordingly, the High Court directed that only the name of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar be entered in the revenue records. It also held that the classification of the land as "Natham Private" was not recognised under the Revenue Standing Order and directed that it be classified only as "Natham" in the deity's name.
Additionally, the Court directed the Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Tamil Nadu, to issue necessary executive instructions and ensure that revenue authorities make corrections in accordance with paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court's judgment.
The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
