Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi, directed senior government officials, including the Superintendent of Police, Karur, to appear before the Court in connection with a contempt petition arising from the non-compliance of a 2019 order directing the removal of encroachments from over 500 acres of land belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur. The Court noted persistent inaction by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department and lack of cooperation from the District Administration and Police despite repeated judicial directions.

The petitioner, A. Radhakrishnan, a devotee, had originally filed W.P.(MD) No.64 of 2018 seeking the removal of encroachments from temple properties owned by Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur. The Court, by order dated 23 October 2019, recorded that an extent of 507.88 acres of temple land was encroached upon and directed the HR & CE Department to take necessary action to restore the properties. Despite these directions, the Department failed to achieve substantial progress over nearly six years, prompting the petitioner to file the present contempt petition.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Criminal Court Cannot Recall or Review Its Judicial Order Beyond Clerical Corrections | Quashes Rajasthan High Court’s Recall and CBI Transfer in Granite Mining Dispute

Cognizance of the contempt petition was taken on 1 March 2024. Reports filed by the HR & CE Department indicated limited attempts at eviction in 2022, which failed due to protests by encroachers and inadequate support from other government agencies. The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, informed the Court that a Monitoring Committee had been proposed to oversee the implementation of the Court’s earlier orders. In September 2024, the Court granted the Department additional time and directed inter-departmental coordination, warning that any non-cooperation would be treated as contempt.

However, subsequent hearings revealed continued inaction. The Court recorded that although some orders had been passed under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, no significant eviction or restoration had taken place. The HR & CE officials stated that they faced threats from encroachers and lacked support from the district administration and police. On 3 October 2024, the Court suo motu impleaded several current and former HR & CE officers to fix accountability.

The Bench recorded, “Though the order was passed nearly six years ago, the HR & CE Department, which is expected to be the custodian of temple properties, has not taken any effective steps to recover the lands.” The Court further stated that despite repeated opportunities, “there has been no substantial progress in implementing the order, and a vast extent of land continues to remain under encroachment.”

The Bench recorded, “Any non-cooperation from any sect of the Departments would be viewed as a contempt of the orders passed in W.P.(MD) No.64 of 2018 and the respective Officer / Official would also be impleaded as a party to this contempt petition.”

The order recorded, “It appears that threats have been made to the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Balasubramaniya Swamy Temple, Vennaimalai and to the Joint Commissioner, Tirupathur, by the encroachers and they have been prevented from executing the orders of this Court.” The Bench warned that if officers could not carry out lawful duties due to fear, “it would show the lawlessness in the State.” The Court declared that the District Administration and Superintendent of Police, Karur, bore direct responsibility for ensuring the safety of HR & CE officers and the implementation of judicial orders.

The Bench also observed that documents necessary for initiating legal action were available with the Collectorate or the District Archives, yet the HR & CE Department had failed to obtain them. The Court questioned, “What prevented the Department from taking action in this regard?” Noting that 27 government officials, 49 industrialists, and 38 influential persons were in illegal occupation of temple land, the Court remarked that the encroachments appeared to have occurred “with the connivance of certain revenue officials and temple trustees.” It criticized the HR & CE Commissioner for not escalating the issue to the State Government’s higher authorities despite being aware of the non-cooperation.

The Court recorded its dissatisfaction over the HR & CE Department’s repeated delays and the persistence of encroachments despite previous directions. “A vast extent of temple lands remains under encroachment. Despite repeated orders of this Court, both in the main writ petition and in the present contempt proceedings, no meaningful action has been taken to restore the temple lands.” The Bench stated that the Commissioner’s failure to involve the Secretaries to Government in the matter “has also contributed to the continued non-compliance.”

Also Read: Visitation Rights of Parents Should Not Affect Child’s Education or Development | Madras High Court Orders Change in Visitation Terms

The Court recorded, “This Court is inclined to proceed further in the contempt application. For effective adjudication and to fix accountability, this Court suo motu impleads the Superintendent of Police, Karur, as a party respondent to these proceedings.”

The Bench directed that all respondents from R.2 to R.18, including the Commissioner of HR & CE Department, the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Executive Officer of the temple, and all other impleaded officers, both serving and retired, must appear before the Court on 17 October 2025 at 10:30 a.m. The Court specified, “The revenue officials are expected to be present along with all the revenue records, including the A-register, for the subject properties.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, Party-in-person
For the Respondents: Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Subburaj, Special Government Pleader; Mr. P. Athimoolapandan, Standing Counsel; Mr. V. Chandrasekar; Mr. K. Govindarajan; and Mr. M. Saravanan

Case Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy & Others

Case Number: Cont.P.(MD) No.371 of 2024

Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi