Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Madras High Court Rejects Argument That 'Deepathoon' Was A Survey Stone

While doing so, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan rejected an argument of the appellants that the stone pillar was not a stone lamp but merely a survey stone erected during the British period when the British were mapping the country.

The Court noted that in the publication titled “Synopsis of the Results of the Operations of the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India Volume XXIX” prepared in the office of the Trigonometrical Branch, Survey of India, two locations had been defined in the Thiruparankundram area and their geographical location had also been described.

The  Court noted that the publication was the most authenticated record about the survey in India carried out by the Britishers and on comparing the description of the mark stone in the book with the stone pillar in question, it was clear that the deepathoon in question carried different distinct features.

The Court thus observed that the findings of the publication would eliminate the “calculated campaign” launched by some of the private appellants to argue that the deepathoon was a survey stone left by the British.

“The kind of mark stones at hill stations is vividly described by the Author in his book which is the most authenticated record about the survey in India carried by Britishers. On comparing the said description of mark stones and the picture of the subject pillar found in The Thiruparankundram hill, it is apparently carries distinct features with carvings on either end in addition a bowl shape on the top. This eliminates the calculated campaign launched by some of the private individuals that the pillar is only a mark stone left behind by the survey department of Britishraj,” the court observed.

The Court also noted that while the private appellants projected the deepathoon as a survey stone, the official respondents, i.e., the Government and the officials of the HR & CE Department, had a different theory about the pillar.

The Court noted that while the District Collector argued that the pillar was a granite stone whose purpose was not known, the HR & CE department argued that it was a lamp post but not one for lighting Karthigai Deepam. The Court noted the HR & CE department's submission that the pillar was a lamp post that was used by Jain monks who used to gather at night for discussion.

The Court noted that the pillar was located in the portion of the hill declared as property of the Devasthanam by the competent civil court. The Court also noted that the appellants had not produced any formidable evidence to show that the Agama Shastra of the Shaivites prevented the lighting of lamp at a place not straight in top of the deity in the sanctum sanctorum.

The Court also noted that the 1994 order of the single judge of madras high court had given liberty to the worshippers to light the Deepam at any part of the hill owned by the Devasthanam which was 15 meters away from the Dargah property. Thus, the court concluded that the deepathoon was an ideal place to light the lamp.

“When there is a custom of lighting lamp at the elevated place available and a place is available within the limits of Devasthanam property, there is no plausible reason for the Devasthanam to refuse to comply the wishes of its devotees, when such a request is not against morality or public policy,” the court observed.

However, underlining that the hill was a protected sight under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts and Rules, the Court directed that any activity should be as per the law. The Court also added that the ASI could impose appropriate conditions to preserve the monuments in the hill.

The Court thus directed the Devasthanam to light the lamp in the deepathoon during the Karthigai deepam festival. The court however clarified that no public should accompany the Devasthanam team and the number of team members (who could go atop the hill to light the lamp) would be decided in consultation with the ASI and the Police.

Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8

Case No: WA (MD) 3188 of 2025