WP No. 6459 of 2023 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 6459 of 2023 N.Murugan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Tahsildar, Arni Taluk, Taluk Officer, Arni Town, Tiruvannamali District. 2. A. Ganesan ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.01.2023 and take appropriate action to secure the Thazanthoppu Thanjiamman Temple situated in survey No.187/2 and 187/3, Kattukanallur Village, Arni Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondent(s) : Mrs.S.Anitha, SGP for R1 No appearance for R2 ORDER This writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 6459 of 2023 __________ Page2 of 4 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the temple viz., Thazanthoppu Thanjiamman Temple comprised in S.Nos.187/2 and 187/3 at Kattukanallur Village, Arni Taluk and Tiruvannamalai District belongs to petitioner's family and more than 175 families are worshipping the God in the said Temple. This being the case, the second respondent is making an attempt to construct a pucca temple with compounds and gates without the concurrence of all the family members and the authorities concerned. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation dated 06.01.2023, however the same was not considered. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the first respondent is trying to remove the temple from the said land, as if the temple is situated in poramboke land. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the temple is situated in Government Poramboke land, therefore, they are making an attempt to remove the temple from the said place. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, the aforesaid temple was constructed long back and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 6459 of 2023 __________ Page3 of 4 it is a “Kuladeivam” for more than 175 families in the said locality. Having allowed the public to worship the deity for more than two decades, now, all of a sudden, the first respondent is trying to remove the temple, under the influence of the second respondent. Further, the first respondent has cleared that the temple was not situated in Eri Poramboke or encroaching the road or water bodies, but it is in the poramboke land. Of course, if the temple is in poramboke land, then obviously, it is a Government property, which meant for general public. Such being the case, this Court directs the first respondent not to initiate any action to disrupt the faith of the public by removing the temple. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 13-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VM To: The Tahsildar, Arni Taluk, Taluk officer, Arni Town, Tiruvannamali District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 6459 of 2023 __________ Page4 of 4 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. VM WP No. 6459 of 2023 13-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis