Judgment : 1. The writ petition in W.P.No.20147 of 2013 is at the instance of a temple represented by its trustee and the challenge is to the order dated 08.07.2013 on the file of District Collector, Kancheepuram, permitting Koovathur Panchayat to conduct weekly shandy in the land in the possession and enjoyment of the temple. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.23750 of 2013 is at the instance of a resident of Koovathur Village and the prayer is to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 22.08.2013 submitted for the purpose of restraining the Koovathur Panchayat from conducting weekly shandy without getting permission from the authorities. THE BACKGROUND: W.P.No.20147 of 2013: 3. The religious institution by name Arulmigu Dharmaraja Drowpathy Amman Temple is stated to be an ancient temple. There is a mud structure depicting Duriyodhanan and it is known as Duriyodhanan Padukalam. The adjacent land is in the possession of the temple. The entire villagers used to take part in the temple festival. The temple and the Duriyodhanan Padukalam are situated in the Grama Natham land. 4. While the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent, who is the President of Koovathur Panchayat started clearing the entire place with the help of JCB machine. The process started on 25.06.2013. The local people opposed the said action and approached the District Collector and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The HR & CE officials conducted inspection of the land and found that Duriyodhanan Padukalam structure was demolished by the fourth respondent. 5. In the mean time, the District Collector, Kancheepuram, passed an order dated 08.07.2013 permitting the fourth respondent to conduct weekly shandy in the land belonging to the temple. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.No.23750 of 2013: 6. The petitioner herein is also aggrieved by the action taken by the fourth respondent to conduct weekly shandy in various places in Koovathur Panchayat and more particularly near his residential house. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent conducted weekly shandy just in front of his house and thereby prevented him from enjoying his property. The petitioner therefore wanted the District Collector to restrain the fourth respondent from conducting weekly shandy. DEFENCE: 7. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent conducted weekly shandy just in front of his house and thereby prevented him from enjoying his property. The petitioner therefore wanted the District Collector to restrain the fourth respondent from conducting weekly shandy. DEFENCE: 7. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.20147 of 2013 contending that the subject land in Survey No.791/17 is classified as Grama Natham and it is meant to be used for the welfare of the villagers. The mud structure of Duriyodhanan Padukalam is not a permanent structure. The structure used to be made in mud on the last day of the annual function. The total extent of land is about 68 cents and the mud structure of the Duriyodhanan occupies only four cents and the remaining land is unutilized. The panchayat wanted to conduct weekly shandy for the benefit of people. The panchayat made a request before the District Collector, Kancheepuram and ultimately, the impugned order dated 08.07.2013 was passed. According to the fourth respondent, weekly shandy would not be conducted during the festival time. 8. Even though sufficient time was given, counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Kancheepuram. 9. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, filed a counter affidavit indicating that the land opposite to the subject temple which is called Duriyodhanan Padukalam has been in the possession and enjoyment of the temple right from the inception. The village people used to create a statue of Duriyodhanan every year to celebrate various functions in memory of Mahabaratham events. There used to be 18 days festival every year in the month of Aadi in remembrance of 18 days war as narrated in Mahabharatham. Large number of people used to take part in the celebration. The HR & CE Department approached the District Collector with a request not to grant permission to conduct weekly shandy in the subject place as it would hurt the sentiments of local people and devotees. However, the objection was not taken into account by the District Collector. The HR & CE Department wanted the District Collector to grant patta in the name of temple by considering the request made by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 10. However, the objection was not taken into account by the District Collector. The HR & CE Department wanted the District Collector to grant patta in the name of temple by considering the request made by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Collector has no authority to permit the local panchayat to locate the weekly shandy without considering the possession of property by the temple. The learned counsel contended that in case weekly shandy is permitted to be conducted, it would spoil the temple atmosphere. According to the learned counsel, the HR & CE Department has already given a request to the District Collector to grant patta in the name of the temple, and notwithstanding such request, impugned order was passed. 11. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the festival used to be conducted only once in a year. During such time, the panchayat would not conduct weekly shandy. According to the learned counsel, it was only in large public interest, the fourth respondent approached the District Collector to permit him to conduct weekly shandy. ANALYSIS: 12. The petitioner in W.P.No.20147 of 2013 is a temple represented by its trustee. The materials available on record clearly shows that the land in Survey No.791/17 having an extent of 2774 sq.m. has been in the possession and enjoyment of the temple. The local people used to make a mud structure of Duriyodhanan every year to celebrate the events relating to Mahabharatham. The present trustee was appointed during the year 2005. The counter affidavit filed by the HR & CE Department supports the stand taken by the temple. 13. The fourth respondent is not claiming ownership or possession in respect of the subject property. The fourth respondent wanted to conduct a weekly shandy. The fourth respondent submitted an application before the District Collector requesting to grant him permission to locate weekly shandy. The District Collector passed an order dated 08.07.2013 permitting the panchayat to use the temple land for the purpose of conducting weekly shandy. 14. The counter affidavit filed by the HR & CE Department shows that the Department has raised objection against granting permission. There is nothing on record to show that the District Collector considered the objections before passing the impugned order. 14. The counter affidavit filed by the HR & CE Department shows that the Department has raised objection against granting permission. There is nothing on record to show that the District Collector considered the objections before passing the impugned order. The parties have a common case that the land has been in the possession and enjoyment of the temple. When a request is made to alter the said position, necessarily the District Collector should have conducted a detailed enquiry with notice to the temple and other villagers. 15. Since the petitioners have come up with a grievance that the mud structure of Duriyodhanan was destroyed by the fourth respondent, I have passed an interim order directing the fourth respondent to restore Duriyodhanan Padukalam in its original position. The fourth respondent thereafter restored the structure in its original position and filed an affidavit before this Court on 08.11.2013. The photographs produced by the fourth respondent clearly shows that he has complied with the directions given by this Court. 16. The fourth respondent appeared earlier in person and submitted that he would not interfere with the possession of property by the temple. 17. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the District Collector was justified in granting permission to conduct weekly shandy in the land in spite of its possession by the temple. 18. There are string of materials before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the land is in the possession of the temple. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department appears to have given an application to the District Collector requesting to issue patta to the temple. It is open to the Commissioner to pursue the said application with the District Collector. The District Collector should consider the application taking into account the continuous possession of the land by the temple. 19. The panchayat, being the local Central Government, must work in furtherance of public interest. There is no dispute that the panchayat should conduct weekly shandy in the interest of public. Similarly, the panchayat should safeguard the religious places and respect the sentiments of devotees. The panchayat should find out an alternative site for conducting weekly shandy. The location of shops should not cause disturbance to the temple. 20. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Similarly, the panchayat should safeguard the religious places and respect the sentiments of devotees. The panchayat should find out an alternative site for conducting weekly shandy. The location of shops should not cause disturbance to the temple. 20. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for more than one reason. The temple was not given due opportunity to submit its version before passing the impugned order. Similarly, the objections of the HR & CE Department was also not considered. The impugned order does not contain any indication that the long and continuous possession of land by the temple was taken note of by the District Collector before permitting the panchayat to establish the weekly shandy. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to the quashed. 21. In the result, the impunged order is quashed. The District Collector is directed to consider the request made by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, for issuance of patta of the land in S.No.791/17, Duriyodhanan Padukalam, Koovathur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, in the name of the temple. While considering the said issue, necessarily the long and continuous possession of the land by the temple and the need for such land to conduct the festival should also be taken note of by the District Collector. 22. Similarly, liberty is given to the fourth respondent to select any other unobjectionable place except the temple land for the purpose of conducting weekly shandy and to make a request to allot the said place to the District Collector. Such request should also be considered by the District Collector on merits. 23. In the upshot, I allow the writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.