Executive Officer Vs Commissioner of Land Administration (Madras High Court)
Temple Land Must Stand in the Deity’s Name-Hereditary Trustee Cannot Be Included in Revenue Entry: Madras High Court
The ruling
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that revenue records relating to the temple property before it must contain the name of the deity alone, without adding that the deity is represented by its hereditary trustee. The Court further clarified that the absence of executive instructions from the State Revenue Department cannot postpone the application of binding Supreme Court law.
The decision was delivered by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on 3 November 2026, in The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil v. The Commissioner of Land Administration and Others, W.P.(MD) No.25244 of 2026.
Background of the dispute
The Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, Palayamkottai, challenged proceedings dated 22 July 2026 issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration. The dispute concerned the manner in which property associated with Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar should be reflected in the revenue records.
The challenged proceedings directed mutation in the name of the temple represented by its hereditary trustee. The petitioner sought correction of the records and issuance of patta in the name of the temple or deity.
The controversy was therefore whether the revenue entry should carry the deity’s name alone, or additionally describe the deity as represented by a named hereditary trustee.
Objection to maintainability rejected
The private respondent raised a preliminary objection concerning the Executive Officer’s entitlement to maintain the writ petition.
The Court rejected that objection, noting that the petitioner was representing the deity whose property interests required protection. It also invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction, observing that a deity is always considered a minor for the purpose of such protection.
This reasoning recognises the Court’s protective responsibility towards the deity. An objection concerning representation could not, in the circumstances, prevent judicial scrutiny of a revenue entry alleged to conflict with binding precedent.
Supreme Court precedent governs the entry
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No.4850 of 2021, namely State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, decided on 6 September 2021.
In paragraph 27, the Supreme Court explained that the deity, being a juristic person, is the owner of the land. Consequently, the ownership column must contain the deity’s name. The manager or priest acts on the deity’s behalf, and their names need not be entered in the ownership or occupancy columns. A pujari’s name may, in the circumstances explained in that judgment, appear in the remarks column. webapi.sci.gov.in
Applying that principle, the High Court held that the direction to record the deity as represented by its hereditary trustee was contrary to the Supreme Court’s dictum. The challenged proceedings required interference to that limited extent.
No executive circular is needed to apply binding law
An objection was also raised concerning the absence of executive instructions from the Revenue Department.
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s declaration constituted the law of the land and had to be applied even without a separate executive instruction or legislative provision implementing it.
The practical significance is clear: administrative authorities cannot continue an inconsistent practice merely because the department has yet to issue an implementing circular. Executive instructions may facilitate uniform compliance, but their absence does not suspend the judicial rule.
“Natham Private” classification disapproved
The Court separately examined the description of the land as “Natham Private.” It found that such a classification was not recognised under the applicable Revenue Standing Order.
Accordingly, it directed that the land be classified as “Natham”, standing in the name of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar.
This aspect of the order is distinct from the question of representation. The Court corrected both the addition of the hereditary trustee in the revenue entry and the unsupported classification attached to the property.
Directions extending beyond the individual entry
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the deity’s name alone be recorded.
The Court also noted that Tamil Nadu’s Revenue Department had not issued the executive instructions contemplated in the Supreme Court judgment. It therefore directed the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, to issue necessary instructions and direct the respective revenue authorities to make corrections consistent with paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court decision.
No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Author’s comments
The judgment draws a necessary distinction between ownership vested in the deity and management exercised by a human representative. A hereditary trustee’s administrative position does not justify including that person in the revenue entry in the manner disapproved by the Court.
The ruling should, however, be read within its actual scope. It concerns the form of revenue entries for the temple property before the Court; it does not declare that hereditary trustees cease to possess their otherwise lawful management functions.
For temple administrations and revenue authorities, the lesson is to ensure that property records accurately reflect the deity’s position, while keeping questions of representation and management within their proper legal framework. Equally significant is the Court’s insistence that binding judicial law must be implemented without waiting for a departmental circular.
Cases Discussed
1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021; 06/09/2021; AY: Not Applicable. Applied: paragraph 27 distinguishes the deity’s ownership from the functions of a manager or pujari; a qualifying pujari’s name may appear in the remarks column.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.07.2026 and consequently direct the official respondents to mutate the revenue records as “Nathan-Punjai- Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil and issue patta in the name of temple/ deity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3. A primary objection had been raised by the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent by contending that the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Executive Officer, representing Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, Palayamkottai Town challenging an order passed by the first Page 2 of 7 respondent, wherein, the first respondent had directed that the revenue records should be mutated in the name of one Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayakar Temple represented by its Hereditary Trustee, the 5th respondent, one Shanmuga Sundaram Pillai.
4. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein is also under the control and management of the said Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil. Further, heavy reliance had been placed upon a circular issued by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department based upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Civil Appeal No.4850 of 2021.
5. The Hon’ble 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. Page 3 of 7
6. 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.
7. Further, the objection raised that the impugned order has been issued without there being any executive instructions by the Revenue Department concerned, it is to be noted that in the Hon’ble 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.
8. In such an event, this Court is of the view that the direction issued by the first respondent to mutate the revenue records in the name of the Deity being represented by its Hereditary Trustee goes contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, this Court is of the view that the impugned order in so far as it directs recording of the Page 4 of 7 name of the Deity represented by its Hereditary Trustee alone is liable to be interfered with.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction that the name of the deity, namely Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar alone shall be recorded in the revenue records. Further, the classification that has been made as “Natham Private” is without any such classification being recognised under the Revenue Standing Order. Hence, the land only classified as natham to be standing the name of the deity, namely, Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10. Before parting with the case, it is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had given a categorical direction that executive instructions could be issued to supplement the statute and rules framed thereunder. However, the Revenue Department, State of Tamil Nadu, as of today, had not issued any such executive instructions in that regard. Hence, the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St.Gorge, Chennai, shall issue necessary instructions in that regard apart from a further direction to the respective revenue Page 5 of 7 authorities to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue records as per the directions contained in paragraph No.27 of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment referred supra.
