By Registered Post Ack.
Due
Gudalur,
28
-11-2014.
From
General
Public,
Gudalur
Town and surroundings,
To
His
Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu,
RajBhavan, Guindy, Chennai
Most respected Sir,
We
the residents of Gudalur town and surrounding of the Nilgiris district hereby profoundly
submit our humble grievances to the kind notice and consideration of his
Excellency and looking for the remedial action by the bureaucrats of the state.
The
Nilgiris, TamilNadu.
There
is an ancient heritage temple called Nambolakottai Vettaikorumagan (Sivan) near
Gudalur being worshiped by the indigenous people of Moundadan Chetty, Paniyar,
Kattunaiker, Kotas, Todas and Badags of the Nilgiris as the home deity and all
the settlers too. It is believed as the incarnation of Lord Siva in the guise
of hunter ‘Vettaikaran’. From the ancient days the deity is managed
by the local inhabitants with direction of rulers of Mysore and then North
Malabar province. There are evidences
for this. In course of time, to
safeguard the area of worshiping and
local people from the disturbances of marauding freebooters from the plains of
South Malabar, the Local elites among the indigenous people sought the help of
North Malabar Rulers during those days to have a local Ruler exclusively for
this area who in turn agreed to send two of his relatives to take over and rule the place called
Nambolakottai Amsam(Area).
In Course of time for not clearing of the debt of the Rulers called Valuvannur,
some part of the area was sold in public Auction in the Wayanad Munisif Court
at Wythiri In the year 1836 for Rs. 3000.00. A money lender called Suppu Patter S/o Appu Pattar
of Kalpathi Village near Palghat was sent as an agent by the Nilambur Kovilagam to participate in
the auction, got the property in question and subsequently transferred to Nilambur Kovilagam
of Sourth Malabar. After the death of Orakara Vilamban Valuvannur, his widowed wife (Subadra) and sister of Kelukutty Valuvannur was sent
out from Nambolakottai for maintaining auspiciousness.
She was staying with her minor son aged
12 years under the care of Chullikunnu Raman Chetty, the clan head of
Cherumulli Chetty of Moundadan Chetty community.
In the second phase, one Vijayan Patter Karyasthan
(Secretary) of Nilambur Kovilagam was staying with Subadra. It was alleged
that the widowed lady was of unsound mind and she was induced to move with the
minor son along with the bag and baggage to Nilambur for Natural treatment. After obtaining the entire residual area of
the Nambolakottai amsom, for a sum of
80000 panan (Rs.20000.00) in which
the extent and boundary were noted in the sale deed. The sale deed was registered as document No.
58/1853 dated 05-12-1853 in the court of Sub Judge Calicut under the Provincial
Collector of the East India Company. Her
minor son and she died in 1845 and 1872 respectively in the mysterious
circumstances. Two petitions of the
local trustees of the temple and land in 1852 & 1854 to the Provincial
Collector of the East India Company Calicut for inquiry of her death and the
rumour of exchanging the sale deed without consultation of Moundadan Chetty
community people being the trustees had no effect. In
such a way the area and the places of worship were held sway by the Nilambur
Kovilagam and annexed with their Jenmam land of other part in South Malabar.
Some part of the land was leased to the Company owners for Establishment of
Coffee and Tea Estates removing the thick forest. These
informations had been recorded in the Nilgiri Gazetter prepared by W. Francis
I.C.S.(1908)
After getting
littl literacy, the indigenous Moundadan Chetty community people formed an association
in the name Nambolakotta Kudiyan Samajam and moved the HR&CE Board Coimbatore & Madras
(Chennai) in a case No. O.S. 229/1932 to retrieve their traditional cultivated
land and to treat the temple sand places of worship within the Nambolakottai amsom as public ones. The Counsel
engaged for their case was one Thiru C.V. Subrhamaniaya Ayar of Madras. Protracted litigation were going on since 1932
and complaints, had in fact been preferred on 24.05.1937 by the Association
members. Finally an order was passed declaring
Nambolakottai and 8 other temples as public temples as per the Board’s order No.
3222 dated 21.12.36. Very soon a review
petition was filed by the Nilambur Kovilagam against this order but proper
investigations were not held with the local inhabitants by the Inspector of
Hindu Religious Endowment Board. His
enquiry was one sided with the agent of Nilambur Kovilagamin Gudalur and with
the Rajah of Nilambur Kovilagam. He
obtained some statements from among the settlers around Gudalur in favour of the
Kovilagam prepared a report and submitted
to the Board. He ignored the local
inhabitant and tenants of the Devasom
land who were the trustees. The advocate also withdrew from appearing in
the final hearing of the appeal petition
due to unsettlement of his arrears of agreed fees despite reminders to K.M.
Velu Chetty, Secretary of the Association.
The aged persons belonging to the
Moundadan Chetty community suggested by the advocate proceeding to Madras for
appearing personally for recording oral statements before the Board were
threatened for dare consequences in the midway. Thus Kudiyan Samajam, which was
the Association of the indigenous Moundadan Chetty community, could not get the
order in their favour. This review petition having come for final
hearing on 2-7-37 in the presence of the agent for the Rajah of Nilambur and
none others from other side being present either in person or by Vakil on the said date, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowment, Madras after
considering all the materials placed before it, passed the orders as fallows as
per Board’s
Order No. 1453 on 2nd July 1937 in M.P.No 24 of 1937 :-
“1. B.O. No. 3222 dated 21-12-1936 is hereby
cancelled.
2. The
matter is re-opened. Accepting the
Memorandum filed by the agent of Rajah of Nilambur, the Vettkaramakan temple- Nambalakotta
is declared as private and the other temples are declared public. The latter temples will be treated as excepted
temples.
3 The
temples of Sri Vettarayaswamy at Nambalakode village Gudalur taluk, Nilgiris
District, is not a temple as defined in
this Act” ( Act 11/27 of the Madras State Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1927 which has been repealed in the Act 1959}”.
The said order
dated 2, July 1937 is not a speaking order and does not assign any reason
whatsoever for giving a converse finding that the Nambalakotta
Temple is allegedly a private temple. This
alone is the only base for the argument for the Nilambur Kovilagam claiming the ownership by suppressing
all the previous history of the temple management placed by the Moundadan
Chetty Community. However the temple
management was supervised by the Nilambur Kovilagam in coordination with
Moundadan Chetty community and with the donation provided by the local public
in different manner up to 2000. The Nilambur Kovilagam used to change the
priests of the temple at their convenient. The last priest of such appointment
was one Govindan Enbrandiri in 1966.
After Independence
and India becoming a Republic Country, various Acts have been introduced. One
among those is the Madras State (Now Tamil Nadu) Hindu Religious Endowment Act
1959. in which Rules and Regulation are framed for management of temples under
the control of the Government and enforcing control over the private temples in case of disputes
This Act was introduced after replacing the erstwhile Act No. 11/1927
of the Madras State Hindu religious Endowment Act 1927 ‘which have been quoted
by the Nilambur Kovilam’ for the ownership of the temple from so called time
immemorial.
The Gudalur Jenmam Estate Abolition and Conversion into Roytwart System Act 1969 (Act No. 24/69) was
passed in 1969 and the land was taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu
after giving the compensation for the entire land including the natural resources
and places of worship. The Act has been implemented
from 1974 onwards. After surveying the
land issued pattas to the cultivators
basing on the justification of valuable records for holdings. In
respect of common sites, as per Article 11 of the Act, the properties have been
declared as the belongings of the Government. Such a way 26.10 acres
in old survey No. 101/1A/I, in the temple and land are situated was surveyed and
assigned an extent of 0.85 acres in new Survey No. 661/1 as Government poromboke temple and the land to the extent of 25.25 acres in new S.No.666/2 earmarked for the temple as “Assessed Waste” of the Government in Cherumulli Revenue
village. Nilamboor Kovilagam preferred an appeal against the
order No. S.R. 385/77(Assistant Settlement Officer) (E) dated 10.07.1977
treating the lands in R.S.No 666/2 as "Assessed Waste" before the
District Judge and Jenmam Abolition Tribunal
of the Nilgiris District at
Udhagamandalam. The Hon'ble District Court in C.M.A.No.25/1988 dated:
27.09.1994 confirmed the order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer, Gudalur (E) in S.R.No.385/77 dated10.08.1977 and dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner. The
Executive Officer, Nilamboor Kovilagam has not submitted any records relating
to whether they have preferred appeal against the order declaring the land in S.No.666/1
as Government Poromboke temple. As per
the settlement records handed over to Revenue Department by the Settlement
authorities the land in which the temple is situated is vested with Government
and not with Nilambur Kovilagam. Then itself either the local public ie.
Moundadan Chetty Community people or the Government of Tamil Nadu ought to have
taken over the temple.
In the
previous affidavits of the Nilambur Kovilagam, was claiming ownership for the temple and land to
the extent of 26.10 acres and they were
asking to assign pattas under Section 8 and for the to the temple building under Section 14 of the Act. But as per the Act, allotment of patta is only
for the cultivable land and not to the structures like temple etc. Fully understanding the provisions of the fact,
suddenly they have changed their claim for ownership but for performing poojas only
which has been clearly recorded in the judgment itself.
There was a dispute on the ownership of the
temple and land which between the Poojari Govindan Embarantry & family and
the Nilambur Kovilagam, when the Poojari
Govindan Embrandtri was replaced and transferred to other temple of the
Kovilagam management in Kerala which led
a Law and Order issue, consequent to that, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Divisional
Executive Magistrate had to
invoke Section 145 of Crpc. for maintaining the peace and for the convenience
of the devotees he ordered to continue
Govindan Embrandthri as poojari until the dispute is settled as per his
proceedings No. Pa Ve.1/2000 dated 25-05-2000. Here the R.D.O. should have
recommended for taking over the temple by the Hindu Religious Endowment
Department but erred to do so.
A Writ petition No.
14699 of 2002 was preferred by the Nilambur Kovilagam in the Honourable High
Court of Madras challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer
Gudalur. The Moundadan Chetty Community Association
represented by its President being the
successor of afore said erstwhile Nambolakotta Kudiyan Samajam, the indigenous
Moundadan Chetty community filed the Imp leading petition in W.P.M.P. 12979 of 2005 in Writ Petition in the case No. 14699 of 2002.
In spite of the vehement opposition by
the Nilambur Kovilagam, the Honourable Court allowed the imp leading petition
on 6.1.2006 by which the indigenous Moundadan Chetty Community Association also
became one of the parties in the case. The Association put forth the vital points
relating to the ancient history of the temple management and got the High Court
ordered to replace the previous Poojari Govindan Embrantry (since expired on 03-09-2005) and his son
Balasubramaniam from the temple premises. This incident has been totally suppressed by
the Nilambur Kovilagam in their writ
petition No.4235 of 2013. In spite of the court orders, poojari Govindan
Embranthiri and his son Balasubramaniam did not leave the temple premises. The Nilambur Kovilagam has once again shown
his deceitful conduct by successfully not including the Moundadan Chetty people
as necessary party in pursuant to the order of the Honourable Court dated
6.1.2006 the imp leaded petitioner W.P.M.P 12979 of 2005 in their petition 14699 of 2002 as one of the respondents, in their
W.P. No.2071 of 2009 challenging the
order No. Rc. B1. 6230/01, dated 07.08.2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional
Gudalur in his Writ petition. However,
the Judgment in Writ Petition W.P. No.2071 of 2009 whereby the Revenue
Divisional Officer was specifically directed to consider the same and pass
orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned
expeditiously in 2011 and in the appeal petition in W.A 824 of 2011. By successfully not imp leading the imp leaded petitioner in petition
14699 of 2002 herein as a respondent and because of the misconduct of the Nilambur
Kovilagam and abuse of the due process of law respondent herein, lost an
opportunity to contest the allegations of the respondent in the Writ Appeal also which was however dismissed on 03.01.2011.
When such being the case, during the year 2008 due to his
illegal conduct and un-auspicious activities the ex-poojari’s son
Balasubramaniam apart from reluctant to move out from the temple premises, obeying
the High Court Order, he Was involved in a criminal case and was remanded under
judicial custody, there was representation of the Moundadan Chetty community and
other Hindu outfits to replace he ex-poojar’s son from the temple premises. They strived hard in making protest in democratic
manner against those illegal activities of Thiru Balasubramaniam. Finally he was removed by an order of the
Revenue Divisional Officer in pursuance of the High Court order. After
protracted discussion for many occasions with local public a peace committee was formed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer and a new Pujari was selected by the peace committee,
to perform the poojas in the said temple got approved by the Revenue Divisional
Officer and the temple was placed under a selected peace
committee. Regular and poojas began on 17-12-2008 and
continued till 19-12-2008 by the selected poojari of peace committee. The
action of the Revenue Divisional Officer was challenged by the committee headed
by Thiru N. Krishnan Chetty as President
and Balasubramaniam as Secretary and filed the suit in No. I.A. 391 of 2008 O.S. 96 of 2008 in the
Court of District Munsif Gudalur in which, apartment the main respondent, the
District Collector of Nilgiris, Thiru M. Narayanan, President of Moundadan
Chetty Community Association and Thiru R. Natarajan correspondent of Sri Ramakrishna
Matriculation School Gudalur were included as other respondents in the case. In the counter affidavit, the Moundadan
Chetty community so also of Thiru R. Natarajan submitted valuable written counter
affidavit to prove that the Poojari has got no authority to file the case
against the temple management. The case
was dismissed in the local court on 20-08 -14.
On 19-12-2008, there was again a Law and
order problem araised due to a verbal clash between the peace committee and supporters of Thiru Balasubramaniam but the
clash was averted by the police on duty. Therefore the Revenue authorities had to close
the temple on 19-12-2008 and kept the temple under lock and key up to 03-06-2009.
A mass petition of many people
surrounding Gudalur was submitted requesting to take over the temple management
by HR&CE for the convenience of the devotees. The petition
was endorsed and recommended by the R.D.O. Gudalur. Under the above said circumstances, the District Collector Nilgiris, wrote a letter
to the Joint Commissioner, TNHR&CE Department, Coimbatore vide R.C.No.18898/C2/2007
Dated 23.02.2009, to take necessary steps to take over possession of the said
temple under the control of TNHR&CE
Dept. The Joint Commissioner issued
necessary instructions to the Assistant commissioner in this matter in letter No.
O. Mu. 2383/2009/Aa3 /dated 11-03-2009. After careful consideration of the Law and
Order problem and the convenience of the devotees to worship the temple, the Assistant
Commissioner TNHR&CE department Coimbatore in accordance with the direction
of the Joint Commissioner issued orders under Section 49(1) of TNHR&CE Act appointing
the Executive Officer Ooty Mariamman temple as Fit Person of the Nambolakottai
temple as per the orders in the Proceedings Se.Mu.Na. Ka.1304/ 2009/ A6/ dated 13.04.2009
to take over possession of the temple in consultation with the Revenue Divisional
Officer. In pursuance of the above
orders, he assumed charge of the temple
as the Fit Person and taken over the possession of the temple from the Revenue
Divisional Officer Gudalur the on 03.06.2009.
After taking over the
administration, Tamil poojari was appointed by the TNHR&CE department and poojas
resorted from 8-06-2009. The suspended traditional festivals of the indigenous
people for long period were resumed and celebrated in grand manner without any hindrance.
There was vast development made by the
Government and by the contributions of public. Steps were laid up-to the top the hill shrine and
Girivalam performed by the devotees on every full moon days. Apartment from this,
illumination of Karthigai Deepaam like in Thiruvannamalai is being held every
year. Basing on the representation of the Moundadan Chetty Community
Association Nambolakottai temple has been taken into consideration as one of
ancient and heritage temples for getting special fund from Government of India
for renovation of heritage and ancient temple of the county, obtained required
fund from the Government of India. Tiles
were laid in and outside of the temple and threshold said to at a cost about Rs
21 lakhs and Kumbabisheshkam performed on 29-06-2012. Special transport facilities have been arranged
by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation for the devotees from surrounding
areas to the temple on the days of important festivals. In the meantime it is learnt that the Nilambur Kovilagam
had applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer Gudalur to hand over possession
of the said temple on the basis of order of the Board of Commissioners, HRCE
Dept,) in Board’s Ex-parte Order No.
1453 on 2nd July 1937 in M.P.No 24
of 1937 issued in the hasty manner. The
Act No. quoted in the order is the erstwhile of Act No. 1929 before the
independence which was repealed in the Present Act of 1959 introduced after Republic
of the Country. Nilambur Kovilagam as if
the temple was still under lock and key and the key was with the R.D.O. suppressing
all the above mentioned activities and events. The Nilambur Kovilagam simply filed
another Writ petition in the High court under W.P. 4135 of 2013 and quoted
false statements in the affidavit as if the temple was still under lock and key
and to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer Gudalur to hand over the
possession of the temple to the Nilambur Kovilagam. This has been recorded in the judgment dated
23-10-2013 ignoring the written arguments and the materials submitted by the
Revenue Divisional and imp leading petitioner Moundadan Chetty Community
Association in their counter affidavits. It is sorry to state that while furnishing
reply to the counter affidavit of the Moundadan Chetty Community Association as
respondent 3, in his reply dated 29-07-2013 the petitioner Thiru T.N. Ashokavarman
Thirimalpad has used many un-parliamentary words about the respondent as gibberish,
obtruder to obfuscate the restoration of the temple to the Petitioner, cohort
of the 2nd respondent and his father, poojari Govindan Embranthiri come
under the cover of tribal. Wayfarer,
full of untruth, Vague, Mind bogging, Gibberish and rambling, extraneous to the
petition, Red-herring to prevent the
course of justice. a puppet on the string controlled by the 2nd
respondent and so on..
Instead of proving with valuable records
denying the contents of theMoundadanChetty who submitted evidences of the historical
events with challenging the historical evidences above these unwarranted un-parliamentary
words were used about the responding party. This is only to threaten the illiterate
indigenous people claiming their right over the management of the historical and
heritage temple of the local people temple and oppressing them. These
type of oppressing & threatening is the regular practice of the Nilambur Kovilagam
against the poor uneducated hilly tribes all along the years ever since 1836
during which the 1st phase of action initiated to change the title from the legal heir of
Nambolakottai Vanuvannur to Nilambur Kovilagam. The Judgment itself taken into
account of the statement of Nilambur Kovilagam stating that the Nilambur
Kovilagam has been maintaining this temple from the time immemorial and on
account of the drastic order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer the
temple is under lock and key ignoring the affidavit of the Moundadan Chetty
community association with details of evidences
Immediately
on receipt of the Judgment of the Single Judge, an appeal petition was preferred
and filed by the Moundadan Chetty Community
Association in High Court vide W.A.S.R.110911 dated 20-11-2013 & 110913 dated
20-11-2013 for injunction which was subsequently
numbered as Writ Appeal No 812 of 2014.
But before taking into consideration of the appeal for hearing in course of time, a contempt petition filed by the Kovilagam was
allowed and the High Court ordered the RDO Gudalur to hand over the key. The RDO obeyed the order of the Honourable Court,
brought the key of the temple in possession of the HR&CE department and
handed it over on 30-04-2014 to the Nilambur Kovilagam despite strong protest
of the public irrespective of caste and creed working with HR&CE department
for maintaining the temple up to the utmost satisfaction. The HR&CE who were unaware of all these happenings
until the R.D.O. called for the key, have now filed an appeal petition in the
High Court. Now, there are following 3 appeals in the High
Court Challenging the Single Judge’s orders.
1. WA.635/2014 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.A.V.ELANGO
FOR R
2.
WA.812/2014 Nilgiri District Moundadan
Chetty Community -do-
Association
Gudalur by
P.V.
Ravichandran for
3 .WA.1243/201 Executive Officer& Fit Person -do-
Ooty Mariamman temple &
Fit Person
M/S.K.ASHOKKUMAR
The delay in appeal of petitions of the Revenue
Divisional Officer Gudalur and the Fit Person of the temple are condoned and
appeal admitted. An interim order of the
Honorable Court has been issued on 25-06-2014
in the writ appeal No. 812 of 2014 by the Moundadan Chetty Community
Association to maintain the status quo until next hearing. But against the order of the Hon Court, it is
reliably learned that a special poojas by the Tantiris of Kerala have been
performed in accordance with the advice of private astrologists from Kerala to
purify poojas of the temple performed by
a Tamil Brahmin until 30-04-2014 which is
unsuspicious to their private temple.
This kind of activities tantamount to belittling the auspiciousness of
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowment which will lead a difference of
opinions among Malayalam and Tamil speaking communities of Gudalur
It is therefore prayed to
the his Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, to kindly direct the department
concern to submit acceptable written statement and argue with clear fact and
figures in the High Court to retrieve the administration by the HR&CE
department and address the difficulties of the local public to worship their
home deity in the Nambolakottai temple.
Thanking to his Excellency,
Copy submitted to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Tamil Nadu Chennai-9
Copy submitted to the Principal Secretary, Tourism Culture
and Religious
Endowment Department Government
of Tamil Nadu Chennai-9
Yours most faithful citizens
|
Sl. No.
|
Signature
Sd.by
|
Name
|
|
01
|
M. Narayanan
|
Mukkur, Cherumully
|
|
02
|
N.B. Balasubramanian
|
Advocate N.B. Balasubramanian Gudalur
|
|
03
|
C.R. Krishnan
|
5/14-A4 Alavayal Road Padanthurai Gudalur
|
|
04
|
R. Natarajan
|
12/905 I.B. Road Gudalur
|
|
05
|
C.R. Govindan
|
Chevidipet Gudalur
|
|
06
|
P.M. Subramanian
|
Kallingarai Gudalur
|
|
07
|
K.R. Subramaniam
|
Cherumulli Gudalur
|
|
08
|
K.P. Narayanan
|
Kallingara Cherumulli
|
|
09
|
N.Raghavan
|
Kolur, Cherumulli
|
|
10
|
M.S. Andy
|
Manguzhi, Gudalur
|
|
11
|
B.R. Velayuthan
|
S/o Raman Chetty Cherumulli
|
|
12
|
T.K. Vasudevan
|
Thithamattam Padanthurai
|
|
13
|
P. Pushpavalli
|
Uliamanjolai, Padanthurai
|
|
14
|
B. Pappannan
|
Kamaraj Nagar, Gudalur
|
|
15
|
K. Subramanian
|
Puthurvayal Gudalur
|
|
16
|
K. Sathiyabama
|
Kolur Cherumulli
|
|
17
|
O.K. Gop[alakrishnan
|
Orumadam Padanthurai
|
|
18
|
C.R. Balakrishnan
|
Kuttimuchi,Cherumulli
|
|
19
|
K.V. Raju
|
Mothavayal Gudalur
|
|
20
|
U.V. Ravichandran
|
5/163A, Uliamanjolai Padanthurai
|
|
21
|
N. Gopalakrishnan
|
Makkumoola Gudalur
|
|
22
|
V.A. Ravivarman
|
5/174, Uliamanjolai Padanthurai
|
|
23
|
P. Venugopalan
|
4/24A, Kolur, Cherumulli
|
|
24
|
R. Selvaraj
|
D/N. 17/21A1, Pallippadi, Nanthahatti (P.O) Gudalur
|
|
25
|
C.R. Nanjundan
|
12/277 Chullikunnu Gudalur
|
|
26
|
M. Senthilkumar
|
Vadavayal Sreemadurai Sreemadurai
|
|
27
|
Subramainam
|
Manjamoola Cherumulli Gudalur (Ex-Councilor)
|
|
28
|
C.B. Unnikrishnan
|
Chelukkadi Padanthurai
|
|
29
|
T.S. Balan
|
5/343, Thithamattam Padandthurai
|
|
30
|
V. Rajendran
|
12/1046F2, Silambu Illam, 1st
Mile,Gudalur.
|
|
31
|
P. Nanjundan
|
Periaveedu
Puliambarai
|
