A few weeks ago, the news of the fradulent transfer of temple lands to private individuals rocked the news cycle in Tamil Nadu. This was in Palani. Then came Thadikombu temple land.
Now, a similar pattern is being observed and seems to have been orchestrated in Karaikudi, Sivaganga district, whose sitting MLA is TVK’s TK Prabhu who is also the minister of natural resources.
TVK Minerals Minister Prabhu is alleged to have been involved in the transfer of patta for around 2.75 acres of temple land in Karaikudi, reportedly worth ₹110 crore to ₹130 crore and located directly opposite his residence and dental clinic.
The land reportedly belongs to the Swayamprakasa Easwarar Temple in Iruppakkudi, around 10 km from Karaikudi. The patta was allegedly transferred in favour of Dhanalakshmi, wife of Karuppaiya, following a 1 June 2026 order by the District Revenue Officer (DRO).
The transfer has raised questions over the role of Prabhu and revenue officials, particularly given the property’s location opposite the minister’s residence and the speed with which the transfer was processed.
The circumstances surrounding the transfer raise questions about the possible involvement and influence of Minister Prabhu and officials in the revenue department.
Temple Land Opposite Minister’s Residence
The land in question is reportedly located directly opposite the residence and dental clinic of Minister Prabhu. The location can be identified by searching for “Prabhu Dental Clinic” on Google and locating the approximately 2.75-acre parcel across the road.
The property is said to belong to the Swayamprakasa Easwarar Temple at Ellupkudi.
The allegations centre on a 1 June 2026 order issued by the District Revenue Officer (DRO) concerning the property. According to the speaker, the order directed the transfer of the patta in favour of Dhanalakshmi, wife of Karuppaiah.
The DRO reportedly relied on two documents: a judgment in O.S. Suit No. 21/2011 and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) allegedly issued by a Special Tahsildar responsible for temple lands.
The timing of the order is suspicious, as it came just around a month after the TVK government assumed office.
Questions Over The 2011 Court Judgment
The issue arises when trying to understanding how the 2011 court judgment cited by the DRO has been interpreted.
The judgment was an ex-parte order and did not establish that Karuppaiah or his family had unrestricted ownership rights over the temple property or the right to buy, sell or otherwise alienate it.
The DRO seems to have relied upon the judgment without properly reflecting what the judgment actually said in the patta transfer order.
It is a matter of concern how an ex-parte judgment could be treated as establishing complete ownership rights over property belonging to a temple.
The claim that a separate order or decision of the Sivagangai District administration supported the transfer is disputed and it appears that the documents are being misrepresented as providing a legal basis for the patta change.
What Was The Special Tahsildar’s Authority?
The NOC allegedly issued by the Special Tahsildar are also a point of concern.
It is noteworthy that under past governments Special Tahsildars were specifically appointed to protect temple lands by identifying encroachments, recovering temple properties, ensuring that they generate appropriate revenue and preventing improper alienation.
Therefore, the authority with which such an official had to issue an NOC facilitating the transfer of temple land is questionable.
Another point that raises concerns is the NOC’s reference number. Although the DRO’s order refers to the NOC, the purported certificate number could not be located in the available records.
Thus, the NOC is questionable on two grounds: the Special Tahsildar lacked authority to issue it, and the reference number itself could not be verified.
Inquiry Completed In Just One Week
The speed of the proceedings is also questionable.
According to the DRO’s report, both the petitioner and respondent were summoned for an inquiry. The parties were reportedly Karuppaiah and his wife Dhanalakshmi on one side and the temple administration on the other.
The statements of the parties were not included in the record and that the respondent, the temple administration, did not actually appear for the inquiry.
The inquiry reportedly commenced on 22 May 2026, barely a week before the DRO issued the patta transfer order on June 1.
The unusually quick pace of the proceedings, particularly given the value of the property, raises even further questions.
The patta was subsequently transferred on 16 June 2026, meaning the entire process: from the inquiry to the DRO order and subsequent transfer, was completed within weeks.
Questions Over Revenue Officials
It is a matter of concern why the particular DRO handling the matter was not transferred when 62 DROs across Tamil Nadu were reportedly transferred recently.
It is alleged that the officer was retained because of his proximity to Minister Prabhu.
Similar allegations raise against revenue officials in Karaikudi, including the Tahsildar, who has reportedly remained in the area for years and is allegedly close to the minister.
The minister seems to be exerting influence over revenue officials and that officials who are considered amenable to him are kept close.
Who Applied For The Patta Transfer?
According to the documents, the patta transfer application was submitted by Narayanamoorthy of Devakottai, seeking transfer of the title in favour of Karuppaiya and his wife Dhanalakshmi.
The application itself had been submitted approximately three months earlier, but the process was not completed until after the June 1 DRO order.
This has prompted questions over why the final stages of the process moved so quickly once the DRO issued the order.
The sequence seems to be evidence of possible collusion and manipulation of the revenue process, especially since the dates are questionable and seem to have been fixed in rapid succession, documents were called for merely as a formality and the transfer was completed without allowing what the speaker described as the usual opportunity for objections or legal challenge.
Is Minister Prabhu Connected?
The allegations centre on Minister Prabhu’s possible role in the Karaikudi land transfer, given that the property, reportedly worth around ₹120 crore, lies directly opposite his residence and dental clinic.
Prabhu’s alleged proximity to the revenue officials involved in processing the patta transfer are also questionable. The minister’s office has further seems to be intervening in departments beyond his Minerals portfolio, allegedly issuing requests and directions to officials on matters outside his jurisdiction.
The Karaikudi case therefore raises questions over whether Prabhu used his influence to facilitate the transfer of the valuable temple property and whether revenue officials close to him helped process the transaction.
A Wider Pattern?
The Karaikudi land case raises questions about a broader pattern involving valuable temple properties. The allegations point to Palani temple properties worth around ₹100 crore, Thadikombu properties in Dindigul worth around ₹200 crore, and the Karaikudi property valued at up to ₹130 crore.
Questions have also emerged over Prabhu’s alleged interference in departments beyond his Minerals portfolio and his alleged influence over revenue officials.
The key questions are straightforward: Did the 2011 ex-parte judgment provide sufficient legal grounds to transfer the temple land? Did the Special Tahsildar have the authority to issue the NOC? Where is the NOC’s reference number and original record? Why did officials complete the inquiry and patta transfer so quickly? Why did the temple administration allegedly fail to appear? And did Prabhu or his associates influence the officials?
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
