Agasthya Ganesh v. The Commissioner

ORDER Challenge has been made against proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.05/2026 dated 04.06.2026 and consequential proceedings in na.Ka.No.06/2026 dated 30.06.2026.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been running a business on the premises of Arulmigu Dakshinamurthy Temple, Arulmigu Kannika Parameshwari Complex, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai, by paying a monthly rent for nearly forty years. This being so, the third respondent, vide a letter dated 04.06.2026, directed the petitioner to vacate and handover possession of the property for the purpose of temple extension. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 17.06.2026 seeking reconsideration. However, the same was rejected by the third respondent via proceedings dated 30.06.2026. Challenging the proceedings dated 04.06.2026 and 30.06.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the petitioner has been running his business at the said location for nearly forty Page3 of 5 years, his livelihood will be severely affected in the event of eviction. However, he fairly submits that if the temple genuinely requires the current site for a public purpose, the third respondent may consider allotting an alternative site to the petitioner.

¶4Mr.D.Yashwanth Rajan, learned Government's Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents and submits that in the event any alternative properties are leased out by the temple administration in the future, the petitioner will be given priority.

¶5Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Such being the case, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned Government's Counsel. Since the subject land is strictly required for the purpose of extending the temple, the petitioner's enjoyment of the property for 40 years cannot stand in the way of eviction. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government's Counsel, it is directed that if any commercial property is leased out by the respondents in the future, priority shall be given to the petitioner. Furthermore, if any alternate property is available to be leased out temporarily in the interim, the respondents may consider the same. Page4 of 5 Subject to the above observations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises on or before 30.08.2026 and hand over the vacant possession to the authority concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VM To:

¶1The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶2The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tiruvannamalai.

¶3The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dakshinamurthy Temple, Arulmigu Kannika Parameshwari complex, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai. WPoNo.o27862oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMYoJ. VM WPoNo.o27862oofo2026 20-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and WMP No. 30519 of 2026 Agasthya Ganesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowment, Mahatma Gandhi salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dakshinamurthy Temple, Arulmigu Kannika Parameshwari complex, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.05/2026 dated 04.06.2026 and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No.06/2026 dated 30.06.2026 quash the same and also consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner except by following the due process of law and to permit the petitioner to continue in possession or consider allotment of an alternate site, if the temple genuinely requires the present site for public purposes. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.V.Anjaneya Babu For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Yashwanth Rajan, Government's Counsel (HR & CE)