(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from interfering in the religious faith and worshiping of Lord Maduraiveeran which is to be consecrated in the land of the trust situated at S.No.616/2 Vadamadurai Village, Palani Tauk, Dindigul District to an extent of 95 cents based on the petitioners representation dated 09.02.2026 and 23.02.2026 within the period stipulated by this Honble court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

1. The writ petition is filed for a mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from interfering in the religious faith and worshipping of Lord Maduraiveeran which is to be consecrated in the land of the trust situated at S.No.616/2 Vadamadurai Village, Palani Tauk, Dindigul District to an extent of 95 cents based on the petitioners representation dated 09.02.2026 and 23.02.2026.

2. Heard Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for R1 to R3 and Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned intervener.

3. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that when no proper steps have been taken in respect of the existing Maduraiveeran Temple, they formed the present Trust and establishing a new temple on a property admeasuring to an extent of 93 cents, which was purchased by the present Trust. However, the same has been interfered with by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. The learner Additional Government Pleader appearing appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that if the petitioner wants to establish a new temple, even if it is in the private property, he has to obtain appropriate permission from the District Collector/3rd respondent herein and also planning permission from the local authority to construct the temple in accordance with the approved plan. He would further submit that respondents 1 and 2 are not concerned with the new temple but their claim is only with reference to the existing temple and the statue.

6. The learned counsel for intervener, who is the Trustee of Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Temple would point out to the representation made by the petitioner, in which they want to take away the statue which is there in the other temple and install the same in their land. The Same cannot be permitted and they have no right to do the same.

7. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they will purchase or construct or create their own statue and they will not take away the existing statue from the existing temple.

8. Upon considering the rival submissions made on either side, since the claim is only with respect to construction of a new temple, it is always open for the petitioner to construct a temple in their own private land purchased by them as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has to get an approval from the 3rd respondent/Collector, as and when any application is made, the same shall be considered by the 3rd respondent/District Collector in accordance with law and grant permission since the petitioner is proposing to construct the temple in the private land belonging to the petitioner.

9. The 3rd respondent/District Collector and the Development Control Regulation authorities are directed to look into the other aspects such as pathway access, etc., in respect of the said land and due permission has to be granted in accordance with the Development Control Rules.

10. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that they will not in any manner take away the statue or interfere with the existing temple stands recorded

11. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.