JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in O.A.No.10 of 2021, dated 20.09.2021 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner challenging the order passed by the first respondent in O.A.No.10 of 2021, dated 20.09.2021, has filed this Writ Petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's ancestor namely, Sonai Poosari found two deities namely, Arulmigu Kambathadi Karukuvalaiyan Sonaiya and Arulmigu Sonaiyasamy and built Temple at No. 6B, Samiyar Santhu, Kajimar Street, Madurai and at No.16A, Sonaiya Koil Complex, Glasskara Street, Madurai, respectively and he had been worshipping the deities regularly and also performing Poojas on auspicious days. The petitioner's ancestor Sonaiya Poosari had two sons namely, Periya Karuppan and Rakkappan. The said Rakkappan had three sons namely, Sappani, Sorimuthu and Muniyandi. The petitioner is one of the grandsons of Sorimuthu. The said Periyakaruppan had two sons namely, Sonaimuthu and Mathalaimuthu. The said Sonaimuthu had two sons namely, Rakkappan and Karuppan. The said Karuppan had three sons namely, Sonaimuthu, Mookaiah and Nadukattan @ Mani Poosari, the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are the descendants of Sonai Poosari. 3. The two deities mentioned above are family deities and all the family members are worshipping the deities from time immemorial. The said Mathalaimuthu, who died without issues, had bequeathed his properties in favour of the deities by giving life interest to his three wives and directed the Pangalis and five Kariakarars to maintain the Trust and the family deities. In contrary against the recitals of the Will, the wife of the said Mathalaimuthu namely, Guruvammal @ Amma Pillai Ammal sold a property to third parties. Hence, a suit was filed against the alienation. 4. The petitioner's father namely, S.Ramachandran gave power to the petitioner to represent him before various authorities in respect of the said property on his behalf and also to claim hereditary rights. Later, the petitioner was informed that one R.S.Mani filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2012, before the V Additional District Court, Madurai, and the petitioner had been stoutly defending the said suit. Thereafter, during the year 2008, the said R.S.Mani joining hands with the fourth respondent actively participated in the Kumbabishekam. Later, the petitioner was informed that one R.S.Mani filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2012, before the V Additional District Court, Madurai, and the petitioner had been stoutly defending the said suit. Thereafter, during the year 2008, the said R.S.Mani joining hands with the fourth respondent actively participated in the Kumbabishekam. Hence, there was a dispute between the petitioner, the said R.S.Mani and the fourth respondent. Later, a peace committee meeting was held on 06.11.2008 and thereafter only, considering the family interest, Kumbabishekam was conducted. This being so, the fourth respondent demolished the walls of the Temple without informing and getting permission from any one of the family members. Hence, the petitioner's father on 07.03.2020 made a complaint in Crime No.155 of 2020 against the fourth respondent and others before the Thideer Nagar Police for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 5. The petitioner submits that W.P.(MD)No.3494 of 2022 filed seeking grant of permission and to provide protection for worshipping and conducting Poojas in the said Temple. The said Writ Petition disposed of on 24.02.2022 with a direction to the Inspector of Police, Thilagarthidal Police Station, Madurai, to conduct a detailed enquiry, after issuing notice to R.Venkadesh Prasanna [petitioner's son] and the fourth respondent and complete the enquiry. Thereafter, on 26.02.2022, the Inspector of Police, Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai, referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, for further enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer on 28.02.2022 finding that no consensus arrived and the situation is volatile, prohibited both the petitioner and the fourth respondent to conduct any festival. This being so, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent vide O.A.No.10 of 2021, dated 20.09.2021, declared the fourth respondent as Hereditary Trustee behind the petitioner's back. 6. The third respondent/Inspector, H.R. & C.E. was aware about the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the dispute is going on for years together. This being so, in his report, he had not mentioned about the rival claim and common hereditary trusteeship entitlement to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Suppressing these facts, he had given a report, based on the incomplete and improper report, the first respondent passed the impugned order. 7. This being so, in his report, he had not mentioned about the rival claim and common hereditary trusteeship entitlement to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Suppressing these facts, he had given a report, based on the incomplete and improper report, the first respondent passed the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses examined before the first respondent are interested witnesses and not independent persons. When the fourth respondent admits that the hereditary trusteeship got devolved on him from one Sonai Poosari, who is the common ancestor of the petitioner, the third respondent ought to have made the petitioner as party respondent, heard him and only thereafter, should have completed enquiry and pass orders. The impugned order passed to facilitate and help the fourth respondent. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to make his objections. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner's father settled abroad. The petitioner had never taken interest in the administration of the Temple as well as conduct of any Poojas. It is a family Temple. As far as the trusteeship is concerned, the petitioner, his father and forefathers have been managing the Temple. During the year 2008, the entire expenditure of Kumbabishekam was borne by the fourth respondent. The petitioner never participated in any of the constructive activities of the Temple. In the Temple, daily two time Poojas are conducted, which are carried out by the fourth respondent. Further, the witnesses examined on the side of the fourth respondent in O.A.No.10 of 2021 confirm fourth respondent managing the Temple affairs and gave evidence in support of the fourth respondent. The petitioner lodged a false complaint before the Thideer Nagar Police Station in Crime No.155 of 2020 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed and taken on file in C.C.No.789 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. On coming to know about the same, the fourth respondent filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1225 of 2022 to quash the proceedings. This Court vide order dated 08.03.2022, allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submits that the fourth respondent taken all initiatives to vacate the encroachers and retrieve the property of the Temple. On coming to know about the same, the fourth respondent filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1225 of 2022 to quash the proceedings. This Court vide order dated 08.03.2022, allowed the said petition and quashed the proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submits that the fourth respondent taken all initiatives to vacate the encroachers and retrieve the property of the Temple. The learned counsel submits that the genealogical report and the Will dated 14.08.1952 executed by Mathalaimuthu, grandfather of the fourth respondent, giving right of trusteeship to the fourth respondent's family, all produced in the O.A. proceedings. The adjudicating authority on the evidence produced and on materials, after due enquiry, had passed a wellreasoned order. If at all the petitioner seeks hereditary trusteeship, he has to approach the concerned authority and file appropriate petition. Hence, stoutly opposed this petition. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the fourth respondent filed a petition under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act''], seeking hereditary trusteeship of the Temple. Based on that petition, the third respondent was directed to conduct enquiry and submit his report. Accordingly, the third respondent conducted enquiry, examined the fourth respondent, one M.Muthu, S/o.Muppilli Konar, M.Dharmalingam, S/o.Mookan, K.M.Sonaimuthu Poosari, S/o.Nadukkattan @ Mani Poosrai, fourth respondent herein, A.Ganesan, S/o.M.Ayyadurai, P.Sundarapandi, S/o.Palaniyapillai and N.S.V.Rajan and gave his report, dated 24.08.2021. Based on the said report, genealogical report and Will, considering the evidence of four persons, including the fourth respondent and 17 Exhibits, the first respondent passed the impugned order. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed in O.A.No.10 of 2021, he has to file an appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act within the stipulated period. In this case, the petitioner failed to file an appeal, instead, had approached this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent are from common ancestor namely, Sonai Poosari, who is the founder of the Temple. The report of the third respondent/Inspector, H.R. & C.E., details the Topography of the Temple and Pooja articles available. 11. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent are from common ancestor namely, Sonai Poosari, who is the founder of the Temple. The report of the third respondent/Inspector, H.R. & C.E., details the Topography of the Temple and Pooja articles available. The third respondent not conducted any enquiry with regard to other legal heirs, which is the primary requirement to ascertain the rights of the other legal heirs and their participation in the Temple activities thereby to ascertain hereditaryship devolvement. The third respondent/Inspector failed to give those details. With regard to other persons, who are examined by him are all persons interested with the fourth respondent. It is seen that from the year 2008, there was dispute at the time of Kumbabishekam between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, criminal cases filed and enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the fourth respondent ought to have arrayed the petitioner as respondent in the O.A., which has not been done so. 12. In the impugned order, there is a mention with regard to genealogical tree as well as Will No.36 of 1952, but, strangely, in the impugned order, there is no deliberation about the same. This Court is not going into the merits of the case. Once the fourth respondent accepts that the petitioner and the fourth respondent have common ancestors, it would be appropriate that he ought to have arrayed the petitioner as respondent in the O.A. For the reasons best known to the fourth respondent, he has not shown the petitioner as the respondent in the said O.A. The third respondent in his report not mentioned about other legal heirs. Now, an order has been passed in O.A.No.10 of 2021, which is appealable under Section 69 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. In view of the same, the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department.