MADURAI: Observing that it is Tamil tradition to light Karthigai Deepam on hilltop and the very purpose of a Deepathoon is to light lamp, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday allowed four petitions that sought direction to light the lamp on an ancient stone pillar atop Thiruparankundram hill in Madurai.
Though the location was opposed owing to its proximity to the Sikandar Badusha Dargah and the fact that the Karthigai Deepam is usually lit on a Deepa Mandapam near the Uchipillaiyar temple on the hill, Justice GR Swaminathan rejected the objections.
He said while the rights of the dargah or the Muslims will not be affected in any way by lighting the lamp at Deepathoon, not doing so might jeopardise the rights of the Subramaniya Swamy temple over the unoccupied portions of the hill due to alleged attempts made by the mosque trustees to encroach them.
The court directed the temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon also, apart from the usual places, from this year, with a direction to the police to grant necessary protection to ensure compliance with the order. The judge quashed the executive officer’s proceedings, where it was decided to light the Deepam at the Dheepa Mandapam.
Devasthanam has title and possession over rest of the hill, says HC
The judge reasoned that such a decision ought to have been taken only by the trustees of the temple, not the EO.
The issue of this year’s Karthigai Deepam ritual on the hill came to court when Rama Ravikumar, a Hindu propagandist, challenged the decision of the executive officer of the temple to light this year’s deepam at the usual spot near Uchipillaiyar temple.
Besides Ravikumar, three more persons and some impleading petitioners opposed the decision, while one more petitioner and an impleading petitioner, TN Waqf Board, and representatives from the above dargah and mosque supported it.
Justice Swaminathan dismissed the latter’s contentions that the petitioners ought to go before the civil court and the matter could be settled only through a demarcation suit to decide which portions of the hilltop belong to the Mohammedans.
The judge observed that as per the civil court decree dated 1923, which was upheld by the Privy Council, the Muslim community had title over only three areas of the hill — Nellithope area, the flight of steps cut out in the rock towards the mosque, and the actual site where the mosque stands.
The devasthanam has title and possession over the rest of the hill. The entire upper portion of the hill did not belong to the Dargah.
When Nellithope had already been demarcated and Dheepathoon is not in the Nellithope area, there is no need to go to civil court again, he opined. He also refused to accept the claim that the issue was already settled by the HC in 2014 and upheld by a division bench in 2017 and a settled issue cannot be reopened.
This was because the title over the hilltop was declared to be vested with the Muslims. But the petitioners only want the lighting of the lamp at the Deepathoon which is not at the hilltop. There are two peaks, of which the mosque is at the highest peak and the Deepathoon is at the lower peak at least 50 metres away, the judge observed. Moreover, the dargah has a compound wall and the Deepathoon, which is in the unoccupied portion, belongs exclusively to the temple, he added.
“Even if it is not a matter of custom, asserting the title of the temple over the lower peak by lighting at the Deepathoon is imperative. The 1923 judgment has clarified who owns what. But that did not deter the mosque trustees from disturbing the status quo. It is therefore necessary that the temple management remains vigilant throughout to foil any attempt to encroach on its property,” he said.