Recent incidents have led to allegations that private Hindu temple lands in Tamil Nadu, particularly in urban centers like Chennai, are increasingly being targeted by local political groups for systematic expropriation.

This alarming trend has been highlighted following a recent investigation linked to the untimely death of Kalyani, a former teacher who later became a spiritualist and established a Sai Baba temple in Pozhichalur, Chennai. The investigation suggests that the primary motive behind her demise was to unlawfully seize her property, given her unmarried status and lack of direct heirs. Adding complexity to the unfolding mystery is the alleged involvement of the temple manager, Karunakaran.

Another incident is centered around the renowned Sri Agastheeswarar Temple in Pozhichalur, Chennai. Local reports indicate that Vanaja Dayalan, a DMK President of the Pozhichalur Panchayat Council, is allegedly the main intermediary in this effort. She reportedly threatened the hereditary trustee of the temple, citing directives purportedly from PK Sekar Babu, the Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department in the DMK government. A widely circulated audio tape of their mediation portrays the DMK functionary acting in a manner reminiscent of a kangaroo court. The underlying issue revolves around allegations that the DMK government seeks to replace the hereditary trustee with someone loyal to them, aiming to facilitate the expropriation of temple lands. Vanaja allegedly employed aggressive tactics, including the use of goons, to intimidate and negotiate with the trustee.

The hereditary trustee of the temple filed a complaint against the controversial mediation process, but regrettably, it was not addressed. Conversely, complaints from opposition goons who attended the mediation were acknowledged, demonstrating influence. Even when hereditary trustee’s presented evidence, including instances where goons accompanying Vanaja were observed removing CCTV cameras in broad daylight within the temple premises to prevent the gathering of incriminating evidence.

A common link has emerged between the Agastheeswarar temple issue in Pozhichalur, Chennai, and a previous incident involving spiritualist Kalyani and the private Sai Baba temple land in the same area as mentioned above –  Karunakaran, a DMK man.

Karunakaran who had claimed himself to be the manager of Sai Baba temple built by Kalyani was present during the mediation led by DMK president Vanaja Dayalan at the Sri Agastheeswarar Temple in Pozhichalur. This is the same, Karunakaran, a card-carrying DMK member and is linked to one ‘Comrade’ Elango aka ‘Comrade’ Elango, also known as Murali who is a member of the Dravida Iyakka Tamilar Peravai (Dravidian Movement Tamils Association) which is run by rabid Dravidianist Suba Veerapandian. It is this Karunakaran who filed an FIR for Kalyani’s death and also facilitated her funeral.

Activists involved with temple affairs warn that these issues are not confined to these temples alone. They point to Government Order 221 issued by the Tamil Nadu government on 4 May 2023, under the Natham settlement and land records policy. This order specifies that public lands without hereditary rights can be declared government property (“sarkar lands”), potentially paving the way for irregular practices where such lands could later be allocated to politically connected private entities for profitable purposes.

Here’s what the GO says:

In August 2023, the Madras High Court unequivocally stated that temple lands cannot be converted into government property (“poramboke”) as outlined in the Government Order (GO). However, activists remain concerned about these kangaroo courts, which continue to operate despite legal rulings, particularly impacting marginalized and voiceless communities.

Note that there is no mention of mosque or church lands that has been classified to be considered as ‘Sarkar Poramboke’ or government lands.

This was brought to light political commentator Maridhas in a video and also in an article published in Thuglak.

Maridhas had written in Thuglak that “Temples have been added to this list (GO). Why lands of mosques or churches are not present? Or why not the Christian Churches of South India which hold huge swathes of land? That’s Dravidian Model for you.“, pointing out that there exists a law now that allows for government to usurp temple lands or village lands as they want.

He alleged that a religious fundamentalist group close to the DMK is behind these alleged attempts targeting temple lands adding that once these lands are usurped by the government citing the GO, it would be given to real estate firms linked to the DMK family in the name of urban development.

HR&CE Refutes Allegations

Responding to Maridhas’ allegations, the HR&CE department gave a vague reply in the Thuglak issue dated 17 July 2024. Joint Commissioner R. Vanmathi claimed that the government has initiated legal action to prevent an individual (Shanmugavel) from selling the properties of the Chola-era Agastheeswarar Temple and attaining pecuniary benefits.

According to the HR&CE department, Shanmugavel’s father Kumarasamy Mudaliar along with 5 others were granted the hereditary trusteeship through an order (O.A. No. 100/72/) dated 24 September 1973.

After Kumarasamy expired in 1994, Shanmugavel had applied for registering as a hereditary trustee based on lineage. Apparently he had also got a stay order from Supreme Court to disallow the kin of other 4 hereditary trustees from staking claim.

Apparently in 2004, Shanmugavel had sought permission from the HR&CE department to sell lands belonging to the temple which was denied. He had appealed against the denial of permission and later in 2008, a GO (No. 371) was passed to prevent the sale of temple lands.

A petition has been filed to declare this 2008 GO as null and void, which is currently subjudice.

The HR&CE Department in its response said that there is no post called poorveega dharmakartha (native/lineage trustee) that is in practice. However, it said that the post of hereditary trustee was awarded to 5 through the order dated September 1973.

It went on to claim that Shanmugavel was removed as hereditary trustee based on a court order and an official was appointed as the “Thakkar” of the temple.

The HR&CE department also emphasized that there was no relation between the said Karunakaran and the temple.

“Without knowing the entirety of the issue, the article has been published wrongly alleging that the HR&CE Minister is intimidating through Goondas”, the HR&CE department’s reply said.

The response also noted that the GO 221 issued in May 2023 that classified temple Natham lands as “Sarkar poromboke” is applicable to “other religious places” too. However, as seen in the GO there is no mention of other religious places.

(With inputs from Maridhas Answers and Thuglak)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.