Area where deepathoon is located belongs to dargah: T.N. Waqf Board

The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board on Tuesday contended before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that as per the judgment in the 1920 Original Suit, the summit of Thirupparankundram hill and its adjuncts, “including where the stone pillar (deepathoon) was located”, belonged to a dargah.

A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan continued to hear the appeals preferred against the order of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, who had directed the Subramaniya Swamy temple management to light the Karthigai Deepam at the deepathoon besides the usual spots, as well as other related appeals.

Advocate R. Abdul Mubeen, representing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, referred to the judgment in the 1920 Original Suit on demarcating the portions belonging to the temple and the Sikandar Badusha Dargah. He said that as per the order, the flight of steps from Nellithope, the summit of the hill, and its adjuncts, including a mandapam, belonged to the dargah/mohammedans. “The stone pillar/deepathoon was accessible from the dargah,” he said, but added that the issue could be resolved through a “court-monitored mediation”.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the Madurai Collector and Commissioner of Police, said the stone pillar being called a deepathoon was a figment of imagination of the petitioners, and the Single Bench had latched on to it. He said there was no mention of the deepathoon in previous court orders.

The petitioner, in his representation to the temple authorities, had not made a mention of it. The petitioner has no legal right to seek lighting of the deepam at the stone pillar /deepathoon. However, the Single Bench proceeded and issued the direction in favour of the petitioners. The people of Thirupparankundram were living peacefully. However, following the Single Bench order, the issue was being discussed as though Tamil Nadu was against Hindus, he said, adding that the State had to consider public order.

The senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, contended that the State’s stand that the deepam was lit only at the Uchipillaiyar temple has been taken for the purpose of this case. It was submitted that the Executive Officer of the temple did not have the authority to respond to the petitioners’ representation, and it was for the temple board to give the response. The 1996 judgment recognises that the authorities can consider lighting the deepam at any other place besides where it was being lit.

It was also submitted that the State cannot argue that there were problems, and hence it cannot be allowed. The administration should handle the situation. “Acknowledged rights should be given effect to. There was nothing to interfere with the Single Bench order,” the senior counsel for the petitioners said.

The court will continue to hear the appeal on Wednesday.