Almighty Would Shower Kindness For Development Of Metro Station: Madras High Court Permits CMRL To Acquire Temple Premises Despite Its Earlier Undertaking

A Single Judge of the Madras High Court has permitted Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to acquire the Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple premises for the purpose of development of a metro station, in spite of CMRL's undertaking before a Division Bench in a PIL that it would not do so.

The Court remarked that the Almighty would shower his kindness and benevolence for such development which will benefit lakhs of people.

The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., challenging a notice issued by the CMRL under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 for acquiring its property for construction of the metro station.

The Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, “This Court, like P.V.Kunhikrishnan,J, fervently believes that the Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness and benevolence for the development of a metro rail station, which will benefit lakhs of people from all segments of society, some of whom may well be devotees, who visit the temple. In the words of the Kerala High Court, “God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.”

A PIL filed earlier by the devotees of the Temple was closed in August, 2024, after recording the submission of the CMRL thus:- "Durgai Amman Temple will remain untouched. The Nuzhaivayil Gopuram of the Durgai Amman Temple will be shifted 5 meters inside the temple premises and will be reinstated upon completion of CMRL works".

During the pendency of that PIL, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, visited the Temple at Whites Road Royapettah, Chennai, to find the possibility of an alternate site for construction of the metro station. (read report)

The Court found that the United India Insurance, whose property was proposed to be acquired for the metro station, was not a party in the earlier PIL and that the undertaking of CMRL did not bind United India Insurance.

Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan represented the Petitioner while Advocate General (AG) P.S. Raman appeared for CMRL and Advocate Ramamoorthy represented the devotees' organisation Aalayam Kaapom Foundation.

Factual Background

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited i.e., the Petitioner had constructed a new head office having a unique feature of having double curvature profile both vertically and horizontally and was the first of its kind in terms of a structural steel diagrid construction. The building consisted of 14 floors with sufficient parking space and the total built up area was approximately 25,000 sq. meters. It obtained a three-star green building certification and such construction was put up after getting necessary approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and since this construction was put up within 50-meter radius of the route map of Phase II of the project of the CMRL, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was also obtained from the CMRL before the CMDA granted approval.

Initially, a decision was taken to have an entry/exit point of the Metro Station within the premises of Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple, Whites Road, Chennai-14. At that stage, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was instituted before the High Court, pursuant to which, the entry and exit point of the Metro Station was proposed to be shifted to the other side of the road at the entrance tower inside the Petitioner’s Building. The said PIL was disposed of based on an undertaking given by the Standing Counsel for the CMRL that the entry/exit point of the Metro Station would be shifted to the site of the Petitioner. Resultantly, a notice was issued by the CMRL, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to why the property should not be acquired. Hence, this was challenged before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, reiterated, “… the law is well settled that the acquisition of lands belonging to religious institutions, in exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain, is a permissible exercise, which does not violate any of their fundamental rights under Article 25 or 26 of The Constitution.”

The Court observed that the impugned notice offends Article 14 of the Constitution by violating the principle of promissory estoppel. It added that such illegality is compounded by the fact that the said notice is a fiat accompli to effectuate a statement made before the First Bench of the Court in the PIL filed by M/s. Aalayam Kaapom Foundation, to which, the Petitioner was not a party.

“In effect, the 5th respondent, the CMRL and the State Authorities appear to have staged their Hamlet, without the Prince of Denmark! Section 3(2) of the Act does not contemplate a post decisional hearing or a hearing, which is only a farce. Premeditation is usually hard to prove, but the facts here are such that the statement made before the First Bench of this Court would show that Section 3(2) of the Act has been turned on its head. Thus, there is a gross failure of natural justice at all levels”, it further said.

The Court noted that the the fact that the CMRL has chosen to change the location solely on account of the proceedings in the PIL would show that it was not moved by paramount considerations of public safety, convenience, and other technical factors, but by what was said and done in a joint inspection conducted by the First Bench of the Court.

“… this Court is convinced that it would be completely contrary to public interest to tear down a building/or portions thereof of a recently constructed structure put up at a cost of Rs.200 crores by a public sector entity, after obtaining all clearances and the NOC from the CMRL and that too on the basis of a proceeding held completely behind its back”, it observed.

The Court concluded that to permit such an exercise by the CMRL would be an egregious fraud on the power of acquisition and would be so grossly unfair and arbitrary that it deserves the label “abuse of power” under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the CMRL’s notice, and allowed CMRL to proceed with its original intended plan by having the metro station within the temple premises.

Cause Title- United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:654)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan and Advocate Keerthikiran Murali.

Respondents: Advocate General P.S. Raman, SGP A. Selvendran, Standing Counsel B. Vijay, P. Veena Suresh, and Advocate Ramamoorthy.

Click here to read/download the Judgment