Places Of Worship Act Does Not Give Protection To Structures Put Up On Government Land By Encroachment: Madras High Court

The petitioner, claiming himself as the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple, Ramanathapuram District, sought a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998, issued by the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.

The Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held, “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. Therefore, reliance on G.O.(Ms)No.205, dated 26.04.2025 and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is only to mislead and does not carry any merit.”

Advocate Niranjan S.Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Additional Government Pleader S.R.A.Ramachandran represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The land, in which the petitioner’s temple stands, is on the bund of a water body (Orruni) classified as Orruni Poramboke Road as per the revenue records. The Commissioner of Ramanathapuram Municipality earlier issued a notice under section 128 of the Act for the removal of encroachment within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The writ petitioner, claiming that the temple has been in existence even prior to his birth, and he had put up the structure in the year 1991 at his own expense and maintaining it, challenged that notice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

The petitioner, thereafter, had issued notice through his Advocate, citing the disposal of his writ petition and his right to file an appeal or review against that order. He had requested the authorities to refrain from taking any coercive steps before the expiry of the appeal period. He had also made a representation to the Commissioner, Ramanathapuram, to desist from taking any action of removal, since he sought a patta and his request was pending consideration. The representation of the petitioner was rejected, and the third and final notice for eviction under Section 128 of the Act was issued. The said notice was under challenge in the writ petition before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions made before the Court, the Bench held that the writ petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute and had put up a Temple construction without permission. He claimed that the Temple was in existence from time immemorial, and the structure was built by him in the year 1991. “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. 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”, it added.

The Bench explained that neither the intention of the legislation nor any provision in the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act gives protection to a structure put up on the Government Land by encroaching.

As per the Bench, the reliance on G.O.(Ms)No.205, dated April 26, 2025 and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was only to mislead and did not carry any merit.

Cause Title: N.Kumar v. The District Collector (Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.2646 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Niranjan S.Kumar

Respondent: Additional Government Pleader S.R.A.Ramachandran, Advocate K.Saravanan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) G.Gnanasekaran

Click here to read/download Order