According to the two persons, Shahul Hameed and Abdul Kareem, they had got lease of the temple lands from another party. But the temple executive officer ruled that Shahul Hameed and Abdul Kareem were illegally occupying the lands and submitted details to the State Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Department. The HRCE department held an enquiry on the report submitted by the executive officer and in August 2011 the duo was asked to vacate.

The two then appealed to the HRCE Commissioner, who dismissed it. Following this, Shahul Hameed and Abdul Kareem petitioned the Madras High Court. The advocate told the court that the change of the lease to the petitioners was intimated to the temple authorities. However, the Government special pleader said that only the lease to the first party was valid and it could not be transferred. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to enjoy the lease, he said.

Justice S M Subramaniam, who heard the case, said the petitioners had not clearly explained if the original lease could be transferred. Also, the change of lease without getting permission from the concerned authorities was illegal, he said adding that enjoying temple properties without valid documents amounted to illegal occupation.

Moreover, the judge pointed out that the petitioners had not been paying the rent for the lease properly, Justice Subramaniam said, adding that the changed lease didn’t specify the period of its validity. The judge also ordered the HRCE Department to immediately recover the property that was being illegally occupied.