Roads Do Not Have A Religious Character: Madras High Court Directs Removal Of Christian Shrine Encroaching Public Road

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking directions to the Greater Chennai Corporation to act on a complaint alleging that a shrine had been erected on a public pathway, causing obstruction to access and inconvenience to pedestrians.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, while allowing the writ petition, observed that “a road or a street does not have any religious character, …irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or irreligious, in case, it is an encroachment on a street or a public place or on a land vested to or belonging to a local body, the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same after due notice.”

Advocate B. Kaarvannan appeared for the petitioner. Advocate E. C. Ramesh appeared for the respondents.

Background

The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that a raised structure had been erected on a public pathway abutting his property, and that a statue had been installed in the structure, obstructing access and causing inconvenience to pedestrians using the public road.

It was pleaded that the structure had been represented as temporary at the time of purchase of the property, but was subsequently converted into a shrine with the installation of a statue, the erection of a tall pillar, the installation of an amplifier, and the unauthorised drawing of electricity from a nearby residential premises.

The petitioner submitted a complaint to the Greater Chennai Corporation authorities seeking the removal of the encroachment. As no action was taken, the writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to act on the complaint.

During the proceedings, the third respondent was impleaded and claimed that a shrine had been established several decades earlier and had become a place of worship for residents of the locality. It was contended that the shrine had existed for many years without objection and that its removal would affect religious sentiments and communal harmony.

The Corporation authorities placed on record inspection reports and revenue records, including Town Survey Land Records, indicating that the land on which the structure was erected was classified as Sarkar Poramboke and recorded as a public street.

The Regional Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, calling for the removal of the superstructure erected on the public road.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the revenue records and inspection reports and noted that the structure in question had been erected on a public pathway classified as Sarkar Poramboke Street. The Court held that the factual position regarding encroachment on a public road was not in dispute.

The Bench rejected the plea that the long existence of the shrine could justify its continuance, holding that no person is entitled to erect or maintain a religious structure on a public road and thereafter resist its removal by invoking religious sentiments.

Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Court reiterated that the right under Article 25 of the Constitution does not extend to offering worship or maintaining religious structures on public footpaths or roads, and that unauthorised religious structures on public pathways are not protected as essential religious practices.

The Court referred to judicial precedents holding that religious freedom cannot be invoked to protect illegal structures on public streets, and that encroachments on public roads are liable to be removed irrespective of the religious or non-religious nature of the structure.

The High Court further analysed the statutory scheme under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and held that the Commissioner is under a statutory duty to remove encroachments from public streets and places after issuing due notice.

The Court held that the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner was in compliance with statutory requirements and that the plea of inability to remove the idol could not be accepted, particularly when the third respondent had admitted to establishing and maintaining the shrine.

The Bench also rejected the contention that long-standing encroachment confers any legal protection, holding that every moment an illegal structure remains on a public road gives rise to a fresh cause of action for removal.

The Court further clarified that allegations made by the third respondent against the petitioner regarding alleged misuse of property or other issues were extraneous to the writ proceedings and could be agitated in appropriate separate proceedings.

Conclusion

The High Court directed the Corporation authorities to proceed with action under Section 128(1)(b) and Section 128(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act for the removal of the encroachment on the public road.

The Court directed that the statutory notice issued to the third respondent be acted upon, and that the Commissioner pass appropriate orders and ensure implementation within the timelines indicated in the order.

The writ petition was allowed in the above terms, and the matter was directed to be listed for compliance.

Cause Title: A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: B. Kaarvannan, Advocate

Respondents: E. C. Ramesh, Udaya Kumar, S Baskar Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment