No Meaningful Action Taken: Madras High Court Asks HR&CE Dept. Officials To Appear In Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple Encroachment Case

The petitioner, a devotee, had filed the writ petition seeking removal of encroachments from the properties belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur.

The Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi held, “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. Hence, 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”, it ordered.

The Petitioner appeared in-person while Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An extent of 507.88 acres of land belonging to the said temple was under encroachment. Based on the nature of encroachments, the lands were classified into five categories, and the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR & CE) to take necessary steps to remove the encroachments and to restore the temple properties. Though the order was passed nearly six years ago, the HR & CE Department, which is expected to be the custodian of temple properties, had not taken any effective steps to recover the lands. Consequently, the writ petitioner / party-in-person filed the contempt application.

The contemnors appeared before the Court, and the Counsel for the HR & CE officials stated that they were in a miserable position, unable to implement the order due to non-cooperation by the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police, Karur. The High Court fixed responsibility on the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that despite the passage of considerable time, there was no substantial progress in implementing the orders of the Court. The HR & CE Department had cited non-availability of documents as the reason for the delay, stating that such documents were not furnished by the District Administration. The Bench noted that the High Court had already directed the HR & CE Department to obtain such documents from the District Archives, if not available with the Collectorate, but that had not been done to date.

It was further noticed that 27 Government officials, 49 industrialists and businesspersons, and 38 influential individuals were in occupation of the temple lands. The report, however, did not disclose their designations or the nature of occupation. “The encroachments appear to have occurred with the connivance of certain revenue officials and temple trustees. The HR & CE Department, the statutory guardian of temple properties, has failed to discharge its duties, leaving it to a devotee to pursue the matter before this Court”, it said.

“Since several influential persons are among the encroachers, the District Administration and Police appear reluctant to cooperate with the HR & CE Department in removing the encroachments. Despite affidavits from the Joint Commissioner and Executive Officers highlighting this non-cooperation, the Commissioner, HR & CE, has not brought the issue to the notice of the Secretaries to Government, Revenue Department and Home Department. The Commissioner’s inaction has, therefore, also contributed to the continued noncompliance”, the Bench noted.

Thus, suo motu impleading the Superintendent of Police, Karur, as a party respondent to these proceedings, the Bench asked the other Official Respondents including the Commissioner and the District Collector, to be present before the Court on October 17, 2025. “The revenue officials are expected to be present along with all the revenue records, including the A-register, for the subject properties”, it concluded.

Cause Title: A.Radhakrishnan v. P.Madhusudhanreddy (Case No.: Cont.P(MD)No.371 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Party-in-person

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader P.Subburaj, Standing Counsel P.Athimoolapandan, Advocates V.Chandrasekar, K.Govindarajan, M.Saravanan

Click here to read/download Order