Encroachment Cannot Be Permitted On Public Street Even If It Has Religious Character: Madras High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan directed the removal of an unauthorised religious structure erected on a public road, holding that encroachments on public pathways cannot be protected on the ground of long-standing existence or religious sentiment. The Court ordered municipal authorities to proceed with statutory action for removal after finding that the structure had been constructed on government land classified as a public street and was obstructing access and pedestrian movement. The case arose from a complaint by a property owner alleging obstruction to his premises and illegal use of public space. Rejecting objections raised by the person maintaining the shrine, the Court affirmed the duty of local bodies to keep streets and public places free from encroachments and fixed a time frame for compliance with the removal process.
The writ petition arose from a complaint concerning an unauthorised structure erected on a public road in Chennai. The petitioner claimed ownership of a residential property and alleged that a structure containing a religious idol had been placed adjacent to the entrance of his house, causing obstruction to ingress and egress and inconvenience to pedestrians using the public pathway. It was further alleged that an amplifier and lighting system had been installed and that electricity was being illegally drawn from a property located across the road.
The petitioner submitted that despite making a written representation to the municipal authorities seeking removal of the structure, no action was taken. The municipal corporation later conducted an inspection and reported that the structure stood on land classified as Sarkar Poramboke Road as per town survey records.
The third respondent contended that the shrine had existed for nearly three decades and claimed that it had been accepted by the local community without objection. It was argued that removal would affect religious sentiments and communal harmony. The third respondent also asserted that the petitioner was aware of the shrine at the time of purchase of the property and was therefore estopped from raising objections.
Statutory action was initiated by the municipal authorities under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act after inspection and verification of land records.
The Court recorded that upon perusal of the affidavits and records, “it is clear that the shrine has been constructed on a public pathway” and that the land was classified in revenue records as “Sarkar Poramboke Street”. It was noted that the structure occupied a portion of the public road.
Addressing the contention regarding long-standing existence, the Court observed that “it is not open to any person to construct a religious structure on a public thoroughfare / road and, thereafter, project religious feelings as a ground to resist the removal of such encroachment”. The Court further stated that “a road or a street does not have any religious character”.
On the plea that the shrine had existed for several decades, the Court recorded that “the plea that the idol has been in existence for more than 30 years, is no defence at all” and clarified that “every minute, nay, second that an illegal superstructure is on a public road or a street, it gives a fresh cause of action” to the authorities.
The Court examined the statutory duty of municipal authorities and stated that “it is the duty of the Commissioner to ensure that a street or public place… is kept free of any encroachments”. It further recorded that the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner was “in full compliance” with the statutory provision requiring prior notice.
With respect to the affidavit filed by the third respondent claiming inability to remove the idol, the Court observed that such a plea “cannot be countenanced”, noting that the same individual had earlier claimed responsibility for establishing the shrine. The Court also recorded that allegations made against the petitioner concerning perjury and illegal activities were “not required to be gone into in this writ petition”.
The Court ordered that “the respondents 1 and 2 shall proceed with the proceedings under Sections 128(1)(b) and 128(2)” of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act as already initiated through proceedings bearing reference RDC(C).O.C.No.188/2026 dated 19.01.2026” and “the notice period served on the third respondent expires on 27.01.2026”.
The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) shall wait for any response that might be given by Mr. Daniel to the notice issued under Section 128(1)(b)” of the Act. Upon expiry of the notice period and consideration of any response received, “the Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the said provision and ensure its implementation on or before 10.02.2026”.
The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) shall act on the web copy of the order and shall not wait for a certified copy”. The matter be “called for compliance on 11.02.2026 immediately after admission”. There shall be no order as to costs”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Kaarvannan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. E. C. Ramesh, Standing Counsel (Respondents 1 and 2); Mr. R. Udaya Kumar for Mr. S. Baskar (Respondent 3)
Case Title: A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai & Others
Case Number: WP No. 49192 of 2025
Bench: Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
