V.Devaraja Bhattar (Rajesh Bhattar) Vs The Commissioner

V.Devaraja Bhattar (Rajesh Bhattar) vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 28, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1529088

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1529088
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Decided On: Jan 28, 2026
Case Number: WP(MD)/815/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.Devaraja Bhattar (Rajesh Bhattar)

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

.....has no male child to perform duty as an archaga. however, the daughters of the petitioner's chitappa, have sold the said house to one madhava battar, who is already having temple allotted house. therefore, the petitioner has made representations on 30.07.2025 and 02.10.2025 to the 2ndrespondent, seeking to evict the said madava battar from unlawful occupation and allow the petitioner to stay there permanently and worship. since, no action was taken on the said representations till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3. the learned special government pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 02.10.2025 would be considered in accordance with law.4. in view of the same, this court this court, without goinginto the merits of the case, directs the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.10.2025, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. with the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. there shall be no order as to costs. vsm index : yes/no ncc : yes/nokrishnan ramasamy, j.vsm to

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY V.Devaraja Bhattar (Rajesh Bhattar) ... Petitioner Vs Srirangam, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate order on the representations given by the petitioner dated 30.07.2025 and 02.10.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Addl.Govt. Pleader for R1 & R3

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2 nd respondent to pass appropriate order on the representations given by the petitioner dated 30.07.2025 and 02.10.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner family is one of the permitted Archaga to perform as an Archagar to the deity Sri Arulmigu Aranganatha Temple, Srirangam, Tircuhirappalli for several decades. The petitioner's father has been allotted one house by the temple authorities. After his demise, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said house. The petitioner's Chitappa, who is also an Archagar to the deity Sri Arulmigu Aranganatha Temple, Srirangam, Tircuhirappalli, has also been allotted one house by the temple authorities. After his demise, the petitioner is entitled to occupy the said house, since the petitioner's Chitappa has no male child to perform duty as an Archaga. However, the daughters of the petitioner's Chitappa, have sold the said house to one Madhava Battar, who is already having temple allotted house. Therefore, the petitioner has made representations on 30.07.2025 and 02.10.2025 to the 2nd

respondent, seeking to evict the said Madava Battar from unlawful occupation and allow the petitioner to stay there permanently and worship. Since, no action was taken on the said representations till date, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 02.10.2025 would be considered in accordance with law.

4. In view of the same, this Court this Court, without going

into the merits of the case, directs the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.10.2025, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. vsm Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

vsm To

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties V.Devaraja Bhattar (Rajesh Bhattar) vs The Commissioner Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy