{"id":99080,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-26T06:06:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-26T00:36:51","slug":"sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nWrit Petition No.6689 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.2 to 3 of 2008\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.3592 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009\nand\nContempt Petition (MD)Nos.557 & 558 of 2009\n\nSree Krishnaswamy Temple,\nKalingarajapuram,\nKanchampuram Taluk,\nKanyakumari District\nRep. by its Manager,\nPushkaran\t                ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.6689\/2008 &\n\t\t                    Cont.P(MD)No.557 & 558 of 2008\n\nR.Vasantha                      ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3592 of 2009\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector,\n  Kanyakumari District.\n\n2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n  Padmanabhapuram,\n  Thuckalay,\n  Kanyakumari District.\n\n3.The Tahsildar,\n  Vilavancode Taluk,\n  Kuzhithurai,\n  Kanyakumari District.          ... Respondents in both W.Ps.<\/pre>\n
4.Dilly\n<\/p>\n
5.Renuka\n<\/p>\n
6.Vasantha\n<\/p>\n
7.Ratha\n<\/p>\n
8.Sinthamani\n<\/p>\n
9.Murugan\n<\/p>\n
10.Suresh\n<\/p>\n
11.Rajakumar\n<\/p>\n
12.Vijayakumar\n<\/p>\n
13.Rengan\n<\/p>\n
14.Satheesh \t<\/p>\n
15.N.Venu                         … 4th Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.3592\/2008<\/p>\n
16.M.Devadoss<\/p>\n
17.Justin Abraham
\n   Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
\n   Vilavancode Taluk,
\n   Kanyakumari District<\/p>\n
18.G.P.Anil Kumar,
\n   Revenue Inspector,
\n   Pinekulam Firka,
\n   Vilavankode Taluk,
\n   Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
19.Mrs.Sarojini Bai,
\n   Village Administrative Officer,
\n   Eludesam Village,
\n   Vilavancode Taluk,
\n   Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
20.A.Jeyasubramanian,
\n   Inspector of Police,
\n   Kollamcode in charge of
\n   Nithiravilai Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
\t \t                    … Respondents in W.P.No.6689\/2008 and
\n\t\t\t                Cont.P.Nos.557 & 558\/2008<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.6689\/2008<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of  Writ of Certiorari, to call
\nfor the records relating to the proceedings No.A2\/16136\/2003 dated 15.07.2008 on
\nthe file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.3592\/2009<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of  Writ of Certiorari, to call
\nfor the records relating to the impugned order dated 17.04.2009 in
\nRef.No.M2\/6295\/2009 issued insofar as the petitioner is concerned by the first
\nrespondent and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in Cont.P(MD)No.557\/2008<\/p>\n
Petition filed  under Section 11 of Contempt
\nAct, 1971, to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order passed
\nby the Court in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.6689 of 2008 dated 29.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in Cont.P(MD)No.558\/2008<\/p>\n
Petition filed  under Section 11 of Contempt
\nAct, 1971, to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order passed
\nby the Court in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.9333 of 2008 dated 07.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner             ...   Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\n(W.P.No.3592\/2008 and\n Respondents 4 to 14 in\n W.P.No.6689\/2008)\nFor Petitioner              ...   Mr.M.P.Senthil for\n(In W.P.No.6689\/2008 &            Mr.K.Srinivasan\n Cont.P.Nos.557 &558 \/2008\t \t\t\t\n^For 4th Respondent \t    ...   Mr.S.Chellapandian\n(In W.P.No.3592\/2009)\nFor Respondents 1-3         ...   Mr.Pala.Ramasamy,\n(In both W.Ps.)\t                  Special Government Pleader.\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tBy consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the
\nissue involved in these writ petitions and contempt petitions relate to the same
\nproperty, the matters are taken up together for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6689 of 2008 has been filed by Sree
\nKrishnaswamy Temple, Kalingarajapuram, represented by its Manager Pushkaran
\nto quash the order passed by the third respondent, dated 15.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3592 of 2009 has been filed by one
\nR.Vasantha, W\/o.Raju for issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated
\n17.04.2009 passed by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The contempt petition in Cont.P.No.557 of 2008 has been filed for the
\ndisobedience of the order made in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.6689 of 2008, dated
\n29.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The Contempt petition in Cont.P.No. 558 of 2008 has been filed for the
\ndisobedience of the order, dated 07.11.2008, made in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in
\nW.P.No.9333 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The controversy involved in these matters relate to grant of house site
\npatta in respect of a property situated in Eludesam village, Kanyakumari
\nDistrict. The survey number of the property in question is not referred to at
\nthis stage, since it is the subject matter of the controversy.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The dispute has arisen on account of a correction effected in the survey
\nnumber of the property which is said to be allotted in favour of the
\nbeneficiaries. The impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.6689 of 2008 is an order passed
\nby the Tahsildar effecting  the  correction in the survey number in respect of
\nthe house site pattas granted to the respondents 4 to 14 as S.No.329\/14-29 to
\nS.No.329\/14-21 and such correction having been made by taking into consideration
\nthe direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.9952 of 2005, dated 14.12.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner temple purchased the
\nproperty comprised in S.No.329\/14\/21 by sale deed dated 13.10.2003 and that the
\ntemple is a private temple and the request made by the temple for grant of patta
\nwas rejected on the ground that the land is a Government poramboke land.
\nTherefore, the temple filed a suit in O.S.No.175 of 2003 on the file of the Sub
\nCourt, Kuzhithurai for a declaration and injunction. The District Collector who
\nwas one of the defendants resisted the suit stating that one Rajammal was
\noriginally assigned a house site patta No.148\/73 and the same was cancelled by
\norder dated 16.12.1975 and the land was resumed by the Government. Since the
\ncondition of assignment was violated, the patta was cancelled and the land in
\nR.S.No.329\/14\/21 was classified as ‘Harijan Kudiyiruppu’. Since the revenue
\nauthorities were taking steps to assign the lands, the temple filed a writ
\npetition in W.P.No.3677 of 2003 and this Court by an order dated 20.04.2004
\ndisposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the respondents to take
\naction after following due process of law and not to evict the petitioner, if
\nnot already evicted. In the meantime, a patta was granted in favour of the
\nrespondents 4 to 14 on 06.08.2003 by mentioning Survey number of the property as
\nS.No.329\/14\/29.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Since in the writ petition filed by the petitioner a direction was
\nissued to initiate action after following due process of law, a notice under
\nSection 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was issued, on which orders
\ncame to be passed and when the appeal was pending, there was a threat of
\ndemolition which necessitated the petitioner to file a writ petition in
\nW.P.No.5595 of 2005 and an order was passed on 28.06.2005 directing to dispose
\nof the appeal petition and in the meantime, not to take coercive steps to evict
\nthe petitioner. However, it is stated by the petitioner that on the next day
\ni.e., on 29.06.2005 demolition was carried out.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The respondents 4 to 14 who are beneficiaries\/assignees filed a writ
\npetition in W.P.No.9952\/2005 to correct the survey number in the patta issued to
\nthem as R.S.No.329\/14\/21 instead of R.S.No.329\/14\/29. The petitioner’s complaint
\nis that the temple was not impleaded as a respondent in W.P.No.9952 of 2005.
\nTherefore, the petitioner filed an impleading petition which came to be ordered.
\nSubsequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the
\nrequest of the respondents 4 to 14 and liberty was granted to the petitioner
\ntemple to move the Civil Court and it was specifically stated that the order
\npassed in the writ petition shall not constitute an embargo.  In the suit which
\nhad been already filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.175\/2003, the petitioner had
\nfiled an application for interim injunction in I.A.No.16\/2008 wherein it is
\nstated that the District Collector who was arrayed as one of the
\nrespondents\/defendants, had filed a counter affidavit contending that the
\nrespondents 4 to 14 are not landless poor. At this juncture, the impugned order
\neffecting the correction in the survey number came to be passed which is
\nchallenged in this writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6689 of 2008. The petitioner has
\nchallenged the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural
\njustice, that when a civil suit is pending, the respondents ought not to have
\neffected the correction especially, in the light of the counter affidavit filed
\nby the District Collector in I.A.No.16 of 2008 in O.S.No.175 of 2003, wherein it
\nhas been stated that the respondents 4 to 14 are not landless poor. It is
\nfurther necessitated by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed
\nmisconstruing the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.9952 of 2005 and
\naccordingly, prayed for allowing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.R.Vasantha, W\/o.Raju has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3592 of
\n2009 to quash the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the District Revenue Officer,
\ninsofar as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner Vasantha is the 6th
\nrespondent in W.P.No.6689 of 2008 but her name mentioned as Vasantha,
\nD\/o.Lakshmi. By the order dated 17.04.2009, the District Revenue Officer has
\ndirected cancellation of  patta granted in favour of the petitioner and others
\nwho are named in the impugned order on the ground that enquiry it came to light
\nthat they are not landless poor, as such they are not eligible to the said
\nbenefit.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The case of the petitioner is that on 06.08.2003, patta was granted to
\nan extent of 2.50 cents mentioning the Survey number as R.S.No.329\/14\/21. The
\npetitioner and others filed W.P.No.3131 of 2004 when the Manager of the Temple,
\nMr.Pushkaran attempted to trespass into the property. It is further stated that
\non 20.06.2005 the said Pushkaran was evicted. Thereafter, the petitioner and
\nothers found that the survey number of the property has been wrongly mentioned
\nand therefore, they were constrained to file W.P.No.9952 of 2005 to correct the
\nsurvey no as 329\/14\/21 instead of 329\/14\/29 and a direction was issued on
\n14.12.2007 to consider their request.   Subsequently, correction has been
\neffected on 15.07.2008 and this order impugned in the other writ petition in
\nW.P.No.6689 of 2008.  It is further stated that interim stay was granted in
\nW.P.No.6689 of 2008 and contempt was also filed for disobedience and petition
\nfor vacating the stay has also been filed. The petitioner would further submit
\nthat she occupied the premises for which patta has been granted in her favour.
\nFurther, the petitioner and others have filed O.S.No.140 of 2009 on the file of
\nthe Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai against the said Pushkaran and
\ninterim injunction has also been granted.  It is further stated that one of the
\nclose friend of Pushkaran who has been  impleaded as fourth respondent in
\nW.P.No.3592 of 2009, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.683 of 2009 for considering
\nthe request for grant of patta in respect of the same property.  On 28.01.2009,
\na direction issued by this Court to consider the representation dated 04.12.2008
\nmade by the fourth respondent, viz., N.Venu. The first respondent, thereafter,
\nissued notice on 03.04.2009 to the petitioner and she also appeared before the
\nfirst respondent and thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.04.2009 has been
\npassed directing the second respondent to cancel the patta issued in favour of
\nthe petitioner on the ground that she and others are not landless poor. Hence,
\nthe petitioner has filed the above writ petition in W.P.No.3592 of 2009, to
\nquash the said order.  It is further stated that the impugned order is in
\nviolation of the principles of natural justice, since no show cause notice was
\nissued and on merits also would state that she is not the wife of any other
\nallottee and the first respondent ought to have waited for the outcome of the
\nW.P.No.6689 of 2008 and ought not to have resorted to passing of the impugned
\norder. The petitioner further made certain allegations which are not necessary
\nto be considered at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
 \t13.Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6689
\nof 2008 and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner  in
\nW.P.No.3592 of 2009 and respondents 4 to 14 in W.P.No.6689 of 2008,
\nMr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and
\nMr.Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 3
\nin both the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.A scramble for a Government property has resulted in the present
\nlitigation. Government have evolved a scheme of granting free pattas to
\nalleviate the grievances of landless poor. The object of the Government behind
\nthe said scheme is to alleviate such of those landless poor from the pangs of
\npoverty and to ensure them to a decent living.  This laudable object has been
\nabused which has resulted in various disputes between the parties herein thereby
\ndefeating the very purpose of the scheme and the grant.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The facts which have arisen to the filing of the writ petitions and the
\ncontentions raised by either party have been set out in the preceding paragraphs
\nand therefore, they need not be repeated once again at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The Writ petition in W.P.No.9952 of 2005 which came to be filed by
\nDilli and 10 others for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer to correct the patta issued in their favour by incorporating
\nthe survey No.329\/14\/21 instead of S.No.329\/14\/29.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The rival claimant to the property who is the petitioner in W.P.No.6689
\nof 2008 was not impleaded as party and it is seen that he has filed a petition
\nin M.P.No.1 of 2006 to implead himself in W.P.No.9952 of 2005 and the same came
\nto be ordered by this Court on 22.08.2006. This Court by an order dated
\n14.12.2007 passed final orders in the above writ petition and issued a direction
\nto consider the request made by the said Dilli and 10 others. After issuing such
\na direction, this Court made it clear that the Civil Court is the competent
\nCourt to decide the title over a particular property and it was further made
\nclear that order of this Court need not be taken as one giving any finding on
\nthe title in favour of the Government or the third respondent over the said
\nS.No.329\/14\/21 and that the Civil Court is at liberty to decide on it as per
\nlaw. Ultimately, while issuing such direction to the respondents to consider the
\nrequest made by the petitioners therein, for correction of the Survey Number,
\nthe third respondent therein was directed to move the Civil Court for obtaining
\nappropriate orders and the order passed in the writ petition will not be
\nconstrued as an embargo in the venture of the third respondent to get
\nappropriate orders as per law. This order made in W.P.No.9952 of 2005 has become
\nfinal.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the impugned order in
\nW.P.No.6689 of 2008, dated 15.07.2008 has been passed misconstruing the
\ndirection issued in W.P.No.9952 of 2005. I am inclined to agree with the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner because this Court only issued a direction to
\nconsider the request in accordance with law and did not issue a positive
\ndirection to correct the survey number.  It is incumbent upon the appropriate
\nauthority to examine such request on merits and in accordance with law and
\ncannot pass an order as if there is a positive direction by this Court to effect
\ncorrection of survey number. Therefore, the scope of the direction has been
\nmisconstrued by the Tahsildar, Kuzhithurai while passing  the order dated
\n15.07.2008. However, this issue need not be further dealt with in the matter in
\nview of the following facts:\n<\/p>\n
\tAdmittedly, a civil suit filed by the temple in O.S.No.173 of 2003 is
\npending on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and I.A.No.16 of 2008 seeking
\nfor interim injunction is also pending and a counter affidavit has been filed in
\nthe said interim application by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District
\nstating that the Dilli and 10 others are not landless poor to receive the house
\nsite pattas and they are not Harizans and they are not eligible to get patta
\nsince the land classified as ‘Harijan Kudieruppu’.  It is stated across the bar
\nthat the said Dilli and 10 others have also impleded themselves in O.S.No.175 of
\n2003. Further, the Dilli and 10 others have also filed a suit in O.S.No.140\/09
\non the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai and the temple
\nrepresented by its Manager Pushkaran has also impleaded himself in the said suit
\nand the matter is also pending.  As held by this Court in the earlier writ
\npetition, the Civil Court is the ultimate court in which the title has to be
\ndecided. The revenue officials cannot give a decision as regards the title and
\nthe decree of the Civil Court as regards the title is binding upon the revenue
\nofficials.  In such circumstances, since the petitioner temple has already been
\nrelegated to approach the Civil Court to establish their right over the property
\nthat such an order cannot be varied or modified at this stage of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Therefore, considering the rival claims between the parties and the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case stated above, I propose to issue the
\nfollowing directions:\n<\/p>\n
\t“i)The impugned order in both the writ petitions shall be kept in abeyance
\nand no right could flow pursuant to such orders until the competent civil court
\ndecides the question of title.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)Either party cannot create any encumbrance on the disputed property.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)All the parties shall abide by the decision which shall be rendered by
\nthe Civil Court in the pending suits.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)It is not in dispute that O.S.No.175 of 2003 pending on the file of the
\nSub Court, Kuzhithurai and O.S.No.140 of 2009 pending on the file of the
\nPrincipal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, relate to the same property. Therefore,
\nin the interest of justice, in order to give an early resolution to the problem
\nto both the suits are required to be clubbed and heard together.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs.Ram Chander Rai and
\nothers reported 2003 (3) MLJ 60, while construing the power under Articles 226
\nand 227 of the Constitution of India and held that proceedings under Article 226
\nare in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court  while
\nproceedings   under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not original
\nbut only supervisory. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of
\nappeal, yet the power   under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
\nintended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of
\nkeeping the subordinate Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
\nauthority and not for correcting mere errors.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Therefore, in exercise of such power, I deem it appropriate that both
\nthe suits in O.S.No.175 of 2003  and O.S.No.140 of 2009 are to be tried together
\nand therefore, there shall be a direction to the effect that O.S.No.140 of 2009
\nwhich is now pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai
\nshall be transferred and tried along with O.S.No.175 of 2003 which is pending on
\nthe file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.\tThe learned trial Judge is requested
\nto expedite the trial of both the suits and conclude the proceedings within a
\nperiod of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is
\nneedless to state that the parties in the present writ petitions have agreed to
\nco-operate with the trial of both the suits.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The writ petitions are disposed of to the extent indicated above. No
\ncosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In view of the orders passed in the above writ petitions, no separate
\norders are necessary in the contempt petitions and accordingly, the contempt
\npetitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector,
\n  Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n  Padmanabhapuram,
\n  Thuckalay,
\n  Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Tahsildar,
\n  Vilavancode Taluk,
\n  Kuzhithurai,
\n  Kanyakumari District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.6689 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2 to 3 of 2008 and W.P.(MD)No.3592 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 and Contempt Petition (MD)Nos.557 & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3098,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":3098,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009","name":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T00:36:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sree-krishnaswamy-temple-vs-the-district-collector-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sree Krishnaswamy Temple vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}