Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K K Ramakrishnan dismissed a plea by a temple’s managing trustee seeking to quash an eviction notice and secure protection for Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple, Ramanathapuram District. The dispute concerned allegations that the temple structure stood on encroached government land on the bund of a water body used as a public pathway. The Court declined to treat the structure as protected under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, stating that the law safeguards the religious character of places of worship and does not extend protection to constructions raised by encroachment on government land.

The petitioner, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of a temple situated in Ramanathapuram District, challenged a notice issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998, seeking removal of an alleged encroachment. The temple structure was located on the bund of a water body classified in revenue records as “Orruni Poramboke Road.” Earlier, a notice dated 29.11.2025 had been issued by the Municipality directing removal of the encroachment within seven days. That notice was challenged and dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice requesting that no coercive steps be taken and submitted a representation seeking grant of patta under G.O.(Ms) No.205, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 26.04.2025. The authorities rejected the representation for want of title documents and building permission and issued further notices culminating in a final eviction notice dated 27.01.2026.

Also Read: Successive FIRs To Keep Accused In Custody Despite Bail Abuse Of Process; Article 32 Writ Allowed: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the temple existed for decades, was assessed to tax, had electricity connection, and was protected under constitutional provisions and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The respondents argued that the structure was an unauthorized construction on objectionable Government land forming part of a water body bund used as a public pathway, and that the Government Order relied upon applied only to residential encroachments.

The Court recorded that in the earlier writ petition, it had observed: “This notice issued after being satisfied that the petitioner has encroached upon the public place. Seven days time was granted for removing the structure. If the petitioner has any reason to continue the possession, he should have made representation to the authorities. From the affidavit, we find that there is no such representation given by the petitioner and the seven days has already lapsed.”

Upon examining the present challenge, the Court stated: “This court on examination of the rival submissions and on perusal of the records is fully satisfied that the writ petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute and had put up a Temple construction without permission.” It further recorded: “Thus, being a non residential structure put up on the land of the Government, G.O.(Ms)No.205, dated 26.04.2025 is not applicable to his case.”

With respect to grant of patta, the Court stated: “Further, no patta for the land on the water body obstructing pathway, can be granted by any authority. Therefore, even if any representation is made for grant of patta, the same is liable to be ignored.”

On the reliance placed upon the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Court recorded: “Likewise, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is enacted to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship, as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Neither the intention of the legislation nor any provision in this Act gives protection to a structure put up on the Government Land by encroaching.”

Also Read: Interest Of The Child Is Paramount And Not The Interest Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Dismisses POCSO Convict’s Appeal, Upholds Joint Trial Conviction

The Court concluded: “In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar

For the Respondents: Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. K. Saravanan, Mr. G. Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl. side)

Case Title: N. Kumar v. District Collector & Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No.2646 of 2026
Bench: Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan