Judgment :- (Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take immediate action to remove encroachment and unauthorised of Kurumbar Vinayagar Temple to the extent of 17 ft.x 7.9 ft. on the road margin in North Giri Veedhi in Giri Valam road around Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani; and (ii) to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to proceedings made in O.Mu.No.3487/2005/A5 dated 29-03-2005 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish and remove the existing construction put up in T.S.No. 861/2, Block No.19, Ward No.3, North Giri Veethi, Adivaram, Palani, Dindigul District.) Common Order P. Sathasivam, J. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions relate to removal of Kurumbar Vinayagar Temple in north Giri Veedhi in Giri Valam Road around Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 2. One Parasakthivel, a resident of Palani has filed W.P.No.3408/2005 as Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-District Collector, Dindigul and Commissioner, Palani Municipality to take immediate action to remove the encroachment and unauthorised structure of Kurumbar Vinayagar Temple to the extent of 17'x7.9' on the Road Margin in North Giri Veedhi in Giri Valam Road around Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani. 3. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani dated 29-03-2005 holding that Kurumbar Vinayagar Temple is not a hindrance to any one and is under the control of Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Dewasthanam, Palani, one R. Manickam has filed W.P.No.7835/2005 to quash the said proceedings and consequently issued directions to respondents 1 to 3 to demolish and remove the existing construction put up in T.S.No.861/2, Block No.19, Ward 3, North Giri Veedhi, Adivaram, Palani. 4. The case of the petitioner as projected in their affidavit is briefly stated hereunder: According to M. Parasakthivel, petitioner in W.P.No.3408/2005, a small Vinayagar temple was built on the Road Margin of North Giri Veedhi called Kurumbar Vinayagar Koil in the year 1994. He is one of the residents in the said road. In spite of representations, Palani Municipality has not taken action for removal of Vinayagar temple which was constructed on the road margin on North Giri Veethi in Giri Valam Salai obstructing the passage of public and the Temple Car. He is one of the residents in the said road. In spite of representations, Palani Municipality has not taken action for removal of Vinayagar temple which was constructed on the road margin on North Giri Veethi in Giri Valam Salai obstructing the passage of public and the Temple Car. No permission was given by anybody for putting up the Vinayagar Temple on the Road Margin of North Giri Road in Giri Valam Road. 5. R. Manickam, petitioner in W.P.No.7835/2005, while reiterating the same allegations, has contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have afforded opportunity to him before arriving a conclusion in favour of the temple. He further contended that the authorities failed to note that Survey No.861/2 is a road as per Revenue records and no construction or encroachment can be allowed either by the Devasthanam or by private individuals. The Revenue Divisional Officer has acted in haste and hurried manner in passing the order dated 29-03-2005. 6. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple, Palani has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.3408/2005 denying all the averments made by the petitioner-M. Parasakthivel. It is stated that the Temple authority is keeping the Girivalam salai without any obstruction and the petitioner-M. Parasakthivel is nothing but binami of R. Manickam who is having vested interest in the property in question and the earlier writ petitions filed by Manickam and others were dismissed by the High Court. Though initially District Munsif's Court, Palani has granted permanent injunction in O.S.No.710/96, the said decree was set aside by the Sub Court, Palani in A.S.No. 43/2001 at the instance of the Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple. Absolutely there is no truth in the claim of the writ petitioner. The Devasthanam is maintaining the Girivalam Road in a most advantageous manner to the devotees by laying cement road for the comfortable use of the devotees and public after spending huge amount. The Kurumbar Temple was constructed long back and with the permission of the Dewasthanam, renovation work was performed. The Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is in existence for more than 200 years and time and again being renovated and the construction of the temple is not an encroachment of Giriveethi and not an unauthorised construction and the users of giriveethi are in no way affected by the existence of the temple and it is in no way a disturbance and hindrance to the devotees. One Manickam and Nachimuthu Chettiar, who are having houses adjacent to the temple and want to use the area being used by the temple and with that intention and motivation filed this writ petition. The temple is situated in an area of north-south 14 feet and east-west 7 feet approximately on the fag-end northern giriveethi. It is the Manickam and his brother Nachimuthu Chettiar who are living in a adjoining portion of the temple by letting the vacant site for rent during festival times and absolutely there is no encroachment as alleged. There is no disturbance or hindrance to the devotees and the general public who are using the giriveethi and in view of the said reason, all his earlier petitions were dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as respondents. 8. In both the writ petitions the main allegation is that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is situated on the road side margin of north Giriveethi in Girivalam road and the said portion is encroached by the temple, that since it is hindrance to the public and users of giri veedhi, the temple structure has to be removed/demolished. Inasmuch as the said question has been considered with reference to the revenue records and after personal inspection by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, he submitted a report in proceedings dated 29-3-2005 to the District Collector, Dindigul, we are of the view that the said report is more relevant to decide the question raised in the writ petitions. The report which finds place at page 24 of the typed-set filed by the newly impleaded respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No. 3408/2005, which is also impugned in W.P.No. 7835/2005 shows that land in Survey No. 861/2 in Block No.19, Ward No.3 belongs to Sri Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple. In the said Survey Number (S.No. 861/2), opposite to Adivaram Police Station, Community people of Kurumba gounders had constructed a Vinayagar Temple 40 years ago. In order to maintain the temple and to perform Poojas continuously/uninterruptedly, the said Community people made a representation on 3-7-1992 to the Joint Commissioner, Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple. Upon that, as directed by the said authority in his proceedings dated 21-7-1992, the Community people deposited a sum of Rs.14,300/- on 25-8-92 to the Devasthanam for the purpose of renovating the Vinayagar temple. Accordingly, the Devasthanam did the renovation work and thereafter regular Poojas are being performed in the said temple. Upon that, as directed by the said authority in his proceedings dated 21-7-1992, the Community people deposited a sum of Rs.14,300/- on 25-8-92 to the Devasthanam for the purpose of renovating the Vinayagar temple. Accordingly, the Devasthanam did the renovation work and thereafter regular Poojas are being performed in the said temple. The Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded that the poojas have been performed and the temple is being maintained with the permission of the Dhandayuthapani Swami Devasthanam. The report further shows that the earlier writ petitions filed by Manickam with regard to the same subject matter in W.P.Nos.19411/94 and 1948/99 were dismissed by the Madras High Court. The report further shows that adjacent to Survey No. 861/2 where the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple exists in Survey No. 861/1, Manickam and his brother Nachimuthu own shops. The vacant site belonging to the temple lies in front of their shop. During the festival season, particularly during "Thai Poosam" and "Panguni Uthiram", the said Manickam used to let out the vacant land at an exorbitant rate from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- to third parties and appropriated the money for himself though the vacant site belongs to Kurumbar Vinayagar temple. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also observed that now-a-days because of the efforts taken by the trustees of the Vinayagar temple, Manickam and his brother are not allowed to use the vacant land which made them to file several writ petitions due to ulterior motive. Among the various information, the following conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani in his proceedings dated 29-3-2005 are relevant: " nkYk; lt[d; ru;nt vz;.861/2-y; mike;Js;s FWk;gu; tpehafu; nfhtpYf;F tlg[wk; ru;nt vz; 861/1y; jpU. khzpf;fk; kw;Wk; mtuJ rnfhjuu; jpU ehr;rpKj;J MfpnahUf;F brhe;jkhd filfs; cs;sJ. ,e;jf; filfSf;F Kd;g[wk; ,e;jf; nfhtpy; fhypaplk; fpuptPjpia xl;o cs;sJ. ,e;j fhypaplq;fs; njt];jhdj;jpw;F ghj;jpag;gl;lit. ,e;j ,lj;jpy; ijg;g{rk;> gq;Fdp cj;jpuk; nghd;w tpHhf; fhyq;fspy; jpU khzpf;fk; vd;gtu; mDkjpapd;wp ntW egu;fSf;F U:.50>000/- Kjy; 1 yl;rk; tiu njt];jhd fhypaplj;ij cs; thliff;F tpl;L me;j gzj;ij rk;ghjpj;J tUtJ tHf;fkhf ,Ue;J tUfpwJ. rkPg fhyq;fspy; ,e;j tpehafu; nfhtpy; ed; Kiwapy; bray;gl;L tUk;gl;rj;jpy; kDjhuUk; mtuJ mz;zd; ehr;rpKj;J vd;gtUk; njt];jhdj;jpd; fhypaplj;ij cs; thliff;F tpLtnjh jhq;fns filfis tpupthf;fk; bra;tjw;nfh mDkjp fpilg;gjpy;iy. ,e;jf; nfhtpypdhy; kDjhuupd; ,lj;jpw;F vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; fpilahJ. jtpu ,e;j nfhtpy; gHdp njt];jhdj;jpd; mDkjpa[ld; ,Ue;J tUk; xU giHa nfhtpy; MFk;. kDjhuu; jkJ Ra yhgj;jpw;fhf ,e;j nfhtpiy ,oj;Jf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W nfhUtJ epahakhdJ my;y. ,e;j ,lj;ij jhKk; jkJ rnfhjuUk; mgfupf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w bfl;l vz;zj;Jld; kDr; bra;J cs;shu;. ,e;jf; nfhtpypdhy; kDjhuupd; ,lj;jpw;F vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; fpilahJ. jtpu ,e;j nfhtpy; gHdp njt];jhdj;jpd; mDkjpa[ld; ,Ue;J tUk; xU giHa nfhtpy; MFk;. kDjhuu; jkJ Ra yhgj;jpw;fhf ,e;j nfhtpiy ,oj;Jf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W nfhUtJ epahakhdJ my;y. ,e;j ,lj;ij jhKk; jkJ rnfhjuUk; mgfupf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w bfl;l vz;zj;Jld; kDr; bra;J cs;shu;. nfhtpiy mfw;Wk; gl;rj;jpy; kDjhuupd; filfSf;F neu; tHp fpilf;Fk; vd;w fhuzj;jpdhnyna ntz;Lbkd;nw g[fhu; kD mspj;J tUfpd;whu;. nkw;fz;l tpehafu; nfhtpy; tlf;F fpup tPjpapy; mike;Js;sjhy; bghJ kf;fSf;Fk;> nghf;Ftuj;jpw;Fk; vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; ,y;iy. kDjhuupd; filfSf;F brd;W tu nghjpa ,l trjp cs;sJ. Mfnt gHdp efuk;> mothuk; tlf;Ffpup tPjpapy;> fpuptPjpf;F tlg[wk; cs;s FWk;gu; tpehafu; nfhtpiy mfw;w ntz;oajpy;iy vd;gijg; gzpt[ld; bjuptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;. nkYk; kDjhuu; ,J nghd;W muR ,lq;fis mgfupj;J cs; thliff;F tpLk; braiy cilatu; vd;W bjupatUtjhYk;> gpu];jhg nfhtpy; xU Fwpg;gpl;l rKhaj;ij nru;e;j nfhtpy; vd;gjhYk;> me;j nfhtpypd; K:yk; vt;tpj ,ila{Wk; kDjhuUf;nfh> ntW egu;fSf;nfh ,y;iy vd;w fhuzj;jhy; kDjhupd; kDtpid js;Sgo bra;ayhk; vdj; bjuptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;. Jq;fs; ek;gpf;ifa[s;s> (xg;gk;) ........ tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpau;> gHdp." The above report makes it clear that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is not an encroachment and not located on the road margin as claimed by the petitioner and not hindrance to any one including the devotees and users of Girivalam veedhi and the same is managed under the control of Dhandayuthapani Swami Dewasthanam. 9. It is also not disputed that the earlier writ petition filed by R. Manickam in W.P.No.19411/1994 to enforce G.O.Ms.No.1256 Local Administration Department dated 28-6-1948 came to be dismissed on 17-08-2001 and having failed in his attempt to remove the temple in question, he set up his brother Nachimuthu to file suit in O.S.No.710/96 on the file District Munsif, Palani for permanent injunction against the Dhandayuthapani Swami temple and Kurumbar Madam from interfering with the possession and enjoyment by putting up any construction before his house and for mandatory injunction to remove the temple in question. The trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the suit so far as the direction, directing the Devasthanam to leave 10 feet in breadth to enable the plaintiff therein to have an access to Giri veedhi. Aggrieved by the said decree, the Devasthanam has preferred appeal in A.S.No.43/2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Palani and the same was allowed and judgment and decree of the District Munsif's Court was set aside on 30-7-2003 and dismissed the suit filed by the said Nachimuthu Chettiar. Aggrieved by the said decree, the Devasthanam has preferred appeal in A.S.No.43/2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Palani and the same was allowed and judgment and decree of the District Munsif's Court was set aside on 30-7-2003 and dismissed the suit filed by the said Nachimuthu Chettiar. Having failed in all his attempt, as rightly pointed out, the said Manickam filed W.P.No.1948/1998 seeking to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents from performing the Kumba-Abisekham of the Kudumbar Valampuri Vinayagar temple in question and the same was also dismissed on 28-8-2003. As said earlier, the said Manickam in his individual capacity has come forward with the present public interest litigation through M. Parasakthivel who is none-else than his henchman. The particulars would show that there is no public interest involved in these cases and we are satisfied that in order to use the vacant site lying in front of the temple, the said Manickam has resorted to several litigation. 10. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer also shows that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is in existence for more than 200 years and it is the categorical conclusion of the said Authority that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is neither an encroachment nor unauthorised construction; on the other hand, it is in existence for time immemorial. We have already referred to the fact that even renovation was performed with the permission and supervision of the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami temple. We are satisfied that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28-3-2005 amply shows that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is not an encroachment and the existence of the temple does not give disturbance or hindrance to the devotees as well as general public who are using the giri veedhi. We also verified the photographs produced by both parties which clearly show that it is the said Manickam and his brother Nachimuthu who are using the open space in front of the temple for their use for which they have no right. We are also satisfied that the earlier writ petitions filed by Manickam have been dismissed by this Court and even the limited relief granted by the Sub Court has been set aside by the appellate court. The petitioners have got right to use and enjoy only their land/property, but not the property of others, namely, the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple or Dhandayuthapani Swami temple. The petitioners have got right to use and enjoy only their land/property, but not the property of others, namely, the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple or Dhandayuthapani Swami temple. As rightly stated, after frustration and in order to earn money by way of letting out the vacant space to third parties at the festival time, the said Manickam has filed several writ petitions and also instigated M. Parasakthivel to file one more writ petition under the guise of Public Interest Litigation. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29-03-2005 and all other materials furnished by the Palani Taluk Kurumbar Madam, the newly impleaded 4th respondent and Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami temple would unambiguously show that there is no substance in the allegations made by the petitioners. We are also satisfied that the Kurumbar Vinayagar temple is neither an encroachment nor a hindrance to any one including the devotees who are using Girivalam veedhi. The temple is also not on the road side margin as claimed by the petitioners. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed with cost. The petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) each to Palani Taluk Kurumbar Madam, Sannadhi Street, Adivaram, Palani within a period of four weeks from to-day. Both the miscellaneous petitions are closed.