Whose name belongs in the revenue records for temple land: the Temple Deity’s Name, or that of the manager, hereditary trustee or priest? The Madras High Court has held that only the deity’s name can be entered, setting aside a Commissioner of Land Administration order that recorded a Palayamkottai deity as “represented by its Hereditary Trustee”.
Madurai: Temple land in Palayamkottai is to be recorded in the name of the deity Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar alone, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed, finding that an order recording the deity “represented by its Hereditary Trustee” went against the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court has also directed the Tamil Nadu Revenue Department to issue executive instructions to give effect to that ruling across the State [The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil v. The Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors.].
The writ petition was disposed of by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu in an order dated November 3, 2026.
A mutation order in the trustee’s representative capacity
Proceedings dated July 22, 2026 of the Commissioner of Land Administration had directed that the revenue records be mutated in the name of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayakar Temple represented by its Hereditary Trustee. Challenging them under Article 226, the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, Palayamkottai Town, Tirunelveli District, sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The petitioner wanted the records mutated in the name of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil, with patta issued in the name of the temple and deity.
Its case rested on a circular issued by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, which in turn was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4850 of 2021.
The Supreme Court’s rule applies with or without instructions
According to the High Court, the Supreme Court had categorically held that only the deity’s name should go into the revenue records, and not that of the manager or the priest. A limited exception lets Poojaris who perform religious functions and cultivate the land be named in the remarks column. The Revenue Department had issued no executive instructions, and that absence was offered as a justification for the Commissioner’s order. The Court did not accept it:
“…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.”
“…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.”
Can another temple’s Executive Officer sue?
The fifth respondent, S. Kanthiah Radhakrishnan, had questioned the petition itself. His objection was that the Executive Officer of a different temple, Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil, had no standing to attack an order about Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayakar Temple. The Court noted that the petitioner temple was itself under the control and management of Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar Kovil, and that the petitioner was representing the deity. It then turned the objection down, pointing to its own duty towards a deity in law:
“…this Court would also have to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction in respect of a Deity, which is always considered to be a minor.”
“Natham Private” and the operative directions
In disposing of the petition, the Court directed that the name of the deity, Sree Narguna Sundara Vinayagar Balasubramaniar, alone be recorded in the revenue records. The land had been classified as “Natham Private”, a category the Court found is not recognised under the Revenue Standing Order. It directed that the land be classified only as “Natham”, standing in the deity’s name. No costs were imposed.
A direction for the Revenue Secretary
One more point was addressed before the Court parted with the case. The Supreme Court had said executive instructions could supplement the statute and rules, yet the Tamil Nadu Revenue Department had issued none to date. The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Chennai, was therefore directed to issue the necessary instructions and to have the revenue authorities carry out corrections in the revenue records in line with paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Why the judgment matters
The order treats the Supreme Court’s rule on recording temple land in the deity’s name as directly binding on revenue officers, whether or not the State has issued instructions. It closes a common route by which trustees, managers or priests get their names attached to temple property in revenue records, and its direction to the Revenue Secretary could prompt corrections well beyond this one temple in Tamil Nadu.
Case Title: The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mutharamman Thirukovil v. The Commissioner of Land Administration & Ors. [W.P.(MD) No. 25244 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 18877 of 2026]
Bench: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
For the Petitioner: V.R. Shanmuganathan
For Respondents 1, 2 and 4: S. Siva Thilakar, Special Government Pleader
For Respondent 3: M.S. Parthiban, Government Advocate
For Respondent 5: S. Kumar
