Temple Lands Are Not Commercial Assets Of State: Madras High Court Pulls Up Authorities Over Encroachment Of 507 Acres

The observations were made while the Court was hearing a contempt petition concerning the implementation of earlier directions, which had ordered the authorities to recover temple lands recorded in the name of the 10,000-year-old temple. Despite the passage of several years and repeated monitoring by the Court, the directions remain only partially complied with.

During the proceedings, the Court also took note of the organised resistance faced by authorities while attempting even basic administrative steps. According to reports placed before the Court, authorities had to deploy three Deputy Superintendents of Police, five Inspectors of Police and 132 police personnel merely to install a flex board declaring the temple’s ownership over the land, indicating the intensity of opposition from encroachers.

Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi noting that the total extent of temple land under encroachment is 507.88 acres and as on date, only 93.64 acres stand recovered, observed, “This Court has monitored this matter for over two years. Numerous orders were passed in this contempt application. Personal appearances were secured. Protection was ordered. Yet compliance remains partial. The poor deity has no voting right. On the other hand, the mighty encroachers have valuable votes. In a democratic polity, electoral arithmetic sometimes appears to influence administrative resolve. But constitutional governance is not subordinate to electoral expediency. A deity, recognised as a juristic person in law, cannot be left remediless because it does not participate in elections. The deity may not vote, but the Constitution speaks. The Court is exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. But, when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, then the rule of law itself stands tested”.

The Bench referring to policy notes of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, noted a worrying decline in the extent of temple lands across the State. According to official records, temple lands have reduced from 5.25 lakh acres in 1986–87 to 4.90 lakh acres in 2000–01, 4.79 lakh acres in 2002–03, and 4.78 lakh acres in 2008–09. “…Temple lands are not commercial assets of the State. They are sacred endowments made by generations of devotees with a definite object to sustain religious worship and charitable services. If endowed properties diminish year after year, it is not a mere clerical anomaly, but reflects systemic erosion”, the Bench further observed.

A. Radhakrishnan appeared-in-person for the petitioner and N.R. Elango, A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsels appeared for the respondents.

The Court emphasised that temple lands were dedicated by generations of devotees for sustaining religious worship and charitable services, and therefore cannot be treated as ordinary government property or revenue-generating assets.

The Court was further informed that certain organisations, including one styled as the “Inam Land Farmers Lessees and House Site Owners Protection Movement”, had mobilised protests against the implementation of the Court’s orders.

The Bench observed that while parties are free to challenge judicial orders through lawful remedies, organised obstruction or extra-legal methods cannot be used to nullify court directions. The Court also expressed concern that some protestors included legal professionals and people’s representatives.

The Court noted that among the 230 identified encroachers, 27 are government officers, 49 are industrialists, and 38 are persons wielding considerable influence. The Bench remarked that such a composition raises a disturbing possibility that the presence of powerful individuals among the encroachers may be contributing to the reluctance of authorities to enforce eviction orders.

“Considering the manner in which the issue is being handled by the stakeholders, this Court, while is conscious that civil Courts must adjudicate upon pleadings and evidence in accordance with law, holds that such adjudicatory process cannot translate into indefinite pendency, especially in matters involving public religious endowments and longstanding encroachments. The cumulative circumstances indicate a pattern of delay that has effectively frustrated the timely enforcement of the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, this Court is constrained to reiterate and reinforce its earlier directions to ensure expeditious disposal of the pending civil suits”, it noted.

The Court also recorded that although 13 encroachers filed review applications in 2023, the same were not actively pursued. The review petitions were ultimately dismissed on 24-01-2025, and the subsequent challenges before the Supreme Court were also dismissed through a common order dated 03-11-2025.

Despite the absence of any legal impediment after the dismissal of these challenges, the Court observed that officials of the HR&CE Department have still failed to implement the orders passed earlier for recovery of the temple lands.

Cause Title: A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy, I.A.S. & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:866]

Appearances:

Petitioner: A. Radhakrishnan Party-in-person

Respondents: N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for N. Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate, T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R. Baranidharan for A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel, P. Athimoolapandan Standing Counsel for K.Govindarajan, Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by P. Subburaj, Special Government Pleader, V. Chandrasekar, C.K. Chandrasekar for P. Athimoolapandan Standing Counsel.

Click here to read/download the Order