Madras High Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Respond on Temple Land Registration Challenge

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to file a counter-affidavit to a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the decision to lift a ban on the registration of nearly 3,085 acres of land classified as 'temple land' in Karur district.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel was hearing the petition filed by A. Radhakrishnan, a devotee of several temples in Karur district, including Balasubramaniya Swamy and Kalyana Pasupatheeswarar Swamy. The petitioner argued that the authorities had directed the Registration Department to 'unblock' or de-freeze the prohibitory module for these lands, which had previously been blocked in 2008 and 2015 to prevent unlawful alienation.

According to the petitioner, the unblocking facilitated the registration of temple lands without prior sanction from the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department and the government, as required under Sections 34 and 41 of the HR and CE Act. He sought the quashing of the orders passed by the authorities in this regard.

During the hearing, the State submitted that before Independence and in the late 18th century, inams (land grants) were made by rulers to individuals and temples. Temples subsequently leased these lands to farmers. When the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, came into effect, all inams were abolished, and the lands were vested with the farmers who had occupied them for 60 years.

The settlement tahsildar conducted inquiries between 1965 and 1967, passing individual orders granting ryotwari patta (land title) to the occupants. These occupants subsequently sold the lands, with 10 to 15 transactions taking place over the past six decades.

After Section 22A was introduced in the Registration Act, allowing temples to object to registrations, some temples wrote to the Registration Department claiming ownership and filed suits to prevent registration. The State said an inquiry found that settlement tahsildar orders existed for each case, and the people had been in possession as absolute owners for over 60 years, with multiple transactions. Consequently, authorities unblocked these lands from the ban.

When the court inquired whether temples were given a hearing, the State confirmed they were, noting that a committee comprising temple representatives was formed to examine the cases and participated in the decision-making process. The State sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit.

The court directed the State government to file a detailed counter affidavit by July 29 and scheduled the next hearing for August 11.