Madras High Court news: The Madras High Courtrecently rejected a plea challenging an eviction notice issued against a temple allegedly built on public land and observed that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not protect religious structures on government land.
A bench of Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishan rejected the plea of a man claiming to be the managing trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple in Ramanathapuram, alleging that the eviction notice was issued without ensuring fairness in decision-making andviolated Article 300 A (No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law) of the Constitution of India.
The bench held that the petitioner had encroached upon the land, and the temple put up on it was constructed without any permissions. (Image is enhanced with AI)
The court observed that, being “non-residential”, the religious structure was not covered under the government’s order (GO), which regularises residential structures. The bench added that the petitioner, citing the Places of Worship Act, was only to “mislead” and carried no merit.
“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,” the bench noted, dismissing the plea on February 6, 2026.
The petitioner has encroached upon the land, and the temple put up on it is constructed without any permissions.
The temple is a non-residential structure put up on the government’s land and is not applicable under the government order issued for regularising residential encroachment.
A patta for land on a water body obstructing the pathway cannot be granted by any authority.
Therefore, any patta grant made is liable to be ignored.
The intention of the legislation or any provision under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, gives protection to the temple enchroaching the government land.
The temple encroached upon the public place
Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple was built on the bund of a water body classified as Orruni Poramboke Road.
The petitioner claimed to be the managing trustee of the temple.
The commissioner of Ramanathapuram Municipality issued a notice dated November 29, 2025, under Section of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998.
The issued notice served as a formal communication for the removal of encroachment within 7 days from the date of its issuance.
The petitioner challenged the notice before the court with his petition, claiming that the temple existed before his birth and he had put up the structure and maintained it at his own expense since 1991.
The court dismissed his plea on consideration of the grounds of his challenge.
The petitioner issued a notice citing the dismissal of his plea and his right to file an appeal or review against the order.
He called for the authorities to refrain from coercively taking steps before the expiry of the appeal period.
On November 15, 2025, he made an appearance before the Thasildar, Ramanathapuram, seeking pakka for the land under his encroachment.
The petitioner also made a representation to the commissioner, Ramanathapuram, informing that he had sought a land patta and his request lay pending, hence to abstain from taking any action for the removal of the temple.
His representation was rejected in the absence of the furnished documents of title and building permission for the structure.
Later, a second notice was issued on December 30, 2025, for the removal of the temple on the encroached land.
On behalf of the residents of Rajamalayetu Street, a legal notice was issued on January 23, 2026, stating no action should be taken against the temple, as the request to grant a land patta was pending.
‘The Third and final notice’
On January 27, 2026, the third and final notice of eviction was issued under the relevant section of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998.
Petitioner’s case
The petitioner challenged the eviction notice.
He claimed that the temple’s existence was immemorial and under the worship of the public without any hindrance or disturbance.
The temple was being assessed for tax and was providing electricity service under his administration.
He further stated that the eviction notice against the temple was issued without considering the principles of natural justice.
The notice was arbitrary and violated Article 300-A(No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law) and other relevant Articles of the Constitution of India, he added.
He also mentioned that his request for a grant of patta was still pending.
Further, the petitioner also claimed that the temple was protected under the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, and therefore was not eligible for eviction.
The state argued that the temple was constructed on the bund of a water body, which was used as a pathway by the public.
No permission was taken before establishing the construction of the temple.
The service connection or tax assessment does not give any right to the encroacher to seek a patta.
The petitioner’s request for the issuance of a patta was related to a government order (GO) issued for regularising residential encroachment on unobjectionable government land; therefore, the temple situated on objectionable government land was not covered under the order, he relied on.
The state further submitted that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, had no relevance to the present case, the temple encroached on the water body, causing obstruction to the pathway.
Petitioner’s reliance on the GO and the Act meant for places of worship was contradictory in itself.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The bench held that the petitioner had encroached upon the land, and the temple put up on it was constructed without any permissions. (Image is enhanced with AI)