JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction lease of land, where the petitioner Sangam is running Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar Aided High School, Kumarasamipettai, Dharmapuri, in view of Resolution dated 09.06.2011, passed by the Peace Committee constituted by the Sub Collector, Dharmapuri. 2. The petitioner is running the school since 1947 under the name and style of Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar Aided High School, Kumarasamipettai, Dharmapuri. 1500 students are studying in the school. The school is giving very good results, and is recognized by the Education Department. 3. It is not in dispute that respondent no.4 is the owner of the land. It field application for eviction of petitioner from the land. The Joint Commissioner accepted the application moved by respondent no.4, and ordered eviction of petitioner. 4. The petitioner preferred revision against the order passed by Joint Commissioner before the Commissioner, HR & CE. The revision petition was also dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order passed by statutory authorities, by filing W.P.No.25040 of 2010. The writ petition was dismissed. However, keeping in view the interest of students, the petitioner was permitted to retain possession till 31.01.2005. It was directed, that if the petitioner Sangam moves application before the authority, it may be considered, for allowing the petitioner to shift the school. 5. The writ appeal filed against the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge was also dismissed. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after orders were passed by this Court, on the representation filed by petitioner, the Sub Collector formed a Peace Committee, and the Committee has passed a resolution recommending the grant of lease to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for issuing writ in nature of Mandamus, to direct authorities under HR & CE to grant lease in favour of petitioner, in view of the recommendations of the Peace Committee, constituted by the Sub Collector. 8. The contention is totally misconceived. The Sub Collector had no right or jurisdiction to entertain the representation filed by the petitioner, not he could constitute the Peace Committee to consider a dispute, which had attained finality in this Court. 9. 8. The contention is totally misconceived. The Sub Collector had no right or jurisdiction to entertain the representation filed by the petitioner, not he could constitute the Peace Committee to consider a dispute, which had attained finality in this Court. 9. It is also not permissible to the authority under HR & CE to act on the recommendations of the Peace Committee, as the Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner can act as per the provisions of the Act. The lease deed of the temple land is governed by Section 34 of the Act, which reads as under: "34. Alienation of immovable trust property – (1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purposes of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution: Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly considered by the Commissioner: Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government." 10. The lease of Temple land is governed by statutory rules, called the Religious Institutions Lease of Immovable Property Rules, 1963, under which the temple land can be leased by auction or under Rule 11. The petitioner can only be given liberty to participate in the auction as and when the authorities decide to auction the lease rights. 11. The Sub Collector is having no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue any directions with regard to temple land. The directions issued by the Peace Committee are totally illegal, thus, liable to be ignored. Once the lease of temple land is regulated by statutory provisions of law, the respondents are not bound by any such recommendations, therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by petitioner. 12. Consequently, this writ petition, being totally misconceived, is ordered to be dismissed. 13. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.