Back
तमिलनाडु के अन्नामालैनाथर मंदिर भूमि बिक्री मामले में मद्रास हाईकोर्ट ने आदेश रद्द
ARAarti Rai
Jan 06, 2026 07:02:57
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Annamalainathar Temple Land Sale – Madras High Court Quashes Government Order
The Madras High Court has set aside the Tamil Nadu Government’s order permitting the sale of 3.93 acres of dry (punjai) land belonging to Arulmigu Annamalainathar Temple, located at Kadayanallur in Tirunelveli district (now Tenkasi district).
Background of the case
The Kadayanallur Annamalainathar Temple owns a total of 31.44 acres of wet (nanjai) land and 94.11 acres of dry (punjai) land. In 1992–93, the hereditary trustee, V. Subramania Iyer, sought permission to sell 3.93 acres of punjai land. stating that the proceeds would be invested in a bank to generate interest income for the temple administration.
On 21.07.1994, the Temple Administration Board (TAB) passed a resolution fixing an upset price of ₹3.10 lakh and granted permission to conduct a public auction.
The controversial auction
In the public auction held on 19.06.1995, R. Subramanian, the son-in-law of the hereditary trustee, emerged as the highest bidder with a bid of ₹10,17,000.
However, under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, it is mandatory to invite objections and suggestions from the public before selling temple land. This procedure was not followed prior to the auction.
Only after the auction was conducted were newspaper notifications issued inviting objections. Several persons, including K.S.S. Uthumanu Mohideen, filed objections citing undervaluation of the land and issues relating to lease and cultivation rights.
Commissioner’s action and legal opinion
On 16 May 1997, the HR&CE Commissioner annulled the TAB resolution, declared the auction invalid, and directed that a fresh auction be conducted strictly in accordance with Section 34 of the Act.
Legal opinions given by Government Law Officers, both before and after the Commissioner’s action, pointed out that:
The mandatory procedure of issuing notice and calling for objections prior to the auction was not followed.
The true market value of the land and broader public interest aspects were not adequately examined before conducting the auction.
Key findings of the High Court
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar, while hearing W.A. No. 1536 of 2014, arrived at the following conclusions:
Sale of temple or charitable endowment properties should be resorted to only as a “last resort.” All alternative revenue-generating options must be thoroughly explored first.
Even in the trustee’s application, there was no clear proof of financial emergency or compelling necessity in temple administration; hence, the statutory tests of “necessity” or “benefit” were not satisfied.
Most importantly, the complete failure to invite public objections and suggestions prior to the auction, as mandated under Section 34, amounted to a “gross illegality,” rendering the entire auction liable to be set aside.
Government order quashed – temple interest paramount
The Government argued that it had additional powers under Section 34(4-A) of the Act. The Court, however, clarified that such powers cannot override or bypass the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 34(1) and its two provisos.
The Court emphasized that protection of temple properties and the interests of devotees must prevail over individual interests, and that the judiciary has a duty to act as a guardian to prevent situations where “the fence itself eats the crop.”
Accordingly, Government Order G.O. No. 195 dated 27.08.2002 and all related confirmation proceedings approving the sale were declared null and void, and the auction sale was entirely set aside.
Future course of action
The Court recorded that the HR&CE Department has already initiated steps to regularize existing occupants of the land as lawful lessees, fix appropriate rent, and generate a stable source of income for the temple.
The 3.93 acres of land shall continue to remain temple property. Any future proposal for sale, if at all, can be undertaken only by strictly following the rigorous procedures laid down under Section 34 of the HR&CE Act, as reaffirmed by this judgment.
0
Report
हमें फेसबुक पर लाइक करें, ट्विटर पर फॉलो और यूट्यूब पर सब्सक्राइब्ड करें ताकि आप ताजा खबरें और लाइव अपडेट्स प्राप्त कर सकें| और यदि आप विस्तार से पढ़ना चाहते हैं तो https://pinewz.com/hindi से जुड़े और पाए अपने इलाके की हर छोटी सी छोटी खबर|
Advertisement
0
Report
0
Report
0
Report
0
Report
0
Report
0
Report
0
Report
बालोद जम्बूरी विवादों के बीच समय पर होगी National Rover-Ranger Jamboree in Balod to Proceed on Sched
0
Report
0
Report
पति के अफेयर के शक में स्कूली छात्रा की बेरहमी से पिटाई Woman Thrashes Schoolgirl Over Suspected Aff
0
Report
NKNeeraj Kumar Gaur
FollowJan 07, 2026 19:02:22New Delhi, Delhi:दिल्ली में 20 बांग्लादेशी पकड़े गए साउथ ईस्ट दिल्ली ने स्पेशल ड्राइव चलाकर 20 बांग्लादेशियों को पकड़ा अवैध तरीके से दिल्ली में रह रहे थे
0
Report
VPVEDENDRA PRATAP SHARMA
FollowJan 07, 2026 19:02:080
Report
MJManoj Jain
FollowJan 07, 2026 19:01:190
Report
KSKartar Singh Rajput
FollowJan 07, 2026 19:00:300
Report