The Madras High Court has directed all parties to maintain status quo until June 22, 2026, in a case involving a government-classified land parcel in Thuthipattu village of Tirupathur district, where a decades-old state-aided primary school is functioning.
The interim direction was issued by a Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan in a writ petition filed by S. Jaishankar. Advocate M. Ramamoorthi appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General T. Gowthaman represented the State authorities.
At the centre of the dispute is approximately 6,545 square feet of land situated near the historic Bindu Madhava Perumal Temple in Ambur Taluk. According to the petition, the property was originally associated with Srinivasa Naidu and later came to be classified as Sarkar Poramboke land.
The petitioner contended that around seven decades ago the site was handed over for the purpose of establishing a primary school for local children. The institution, founded by John Sundar, later came to be known as IELC Primary School and has since functioned as a state-aided educational institution serving the surrounding villages.
According to a report by Verdictum, The controversy emerged in 2023 when efforts were allegedly initiated to construct a church structure within the school premises. The petitioner claimed that, during the same period, student enrolment at the school declined sharply, raising concerns among residents that the educational institution was being gradually displaced.
Local opposition to the construction reportedly led the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Vaniyambadi, to invoke preventive proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avert possible law-and-order issues. Following an inquiry, the RDO recorded that an aided primary school was operating on the site and directed the removal of portions of the church structure and tower that had allegedly been erected without authorization. The order further noted that any such construction required prior approval from the District Collector under the applicable government regulations.
The petitioner further alleged that despite these directions, revenue records were subsequently altered and the classification and ownership entries relating to the property were changed through irregular means. Residents challenged these developments before the district administration, claiming that the changes had been secured through manipulation of official records.
Representations were submitted to district authorities seeking intervention. However, the District Collector advised the aggrieved parties to pursue remedies before the competent civil court.
Meanwhile, educational authorities also became involved. In early 2024, the Joint Director of Elementary Education instructed the District Educational Officer to examine the matter, leading to a formal inquiry. Separately, proceedings were initiated by revenue authorities to review and potentially cancel the disputed patta.
The petitioner stated that a fresh controversy arose in May 2024 when the ninth respondent allegedly represented the property before the District Collector as an existing church structure undergoing renovation. According to the petition, the existence of the functioning primary school was not disclosed, resulting in an order that permitted the work to proceed without obtaining prior approval on the ground that it related to an old church building.
Challenging this decision before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the order had been passed without hearing the affected residents and that it jeopardized the continued existence of a neighbourhood school protected under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The writ petition contends that the school qualifies as a public building under the relevant building regulations and that its conversion for religious purposes would violate planning and development norms. It also argues that closure of the institution would undermine the statutory objective of ensuring access to primary education within a reasonable distance of a child’s residence.
Taking note of the dispute, the High Court directed that the existing position be maintained until June 22, 2026, and posted the matter for further hearing on June 8, 2026.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
