Madras High Court: While considering a writ petition under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998 (‘Act of 1998’), the Division Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran* and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ., observed that the petitioner, who had constructed a temple on the bund of a water body was not entitled to protection under the Government Order or the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (‘Places of Worship Act’). The Court held that the Places of Worship Act only prohibits conversion of places of worship as they stood on 15-08-1947, thereby rejecting the writ petition.
Background:
The petitioner, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of a temple, challenged a notice issued under Section 128 of the Act of 1998 for removal of encroachment. The temple stood on the bund of a water body classified as Orruni Poramboke Road. Earlier, a notice dated 29-11-2025 was issued for removal, which was challenged in a prior writ petition and dismissed.
The petitioner argued that the temple existed from time immemorial, was assessed to tax, had electricity service, and was under worship by the public. He contended that the eviction notice violated Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300-A of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. He relied on the G.O.(Ms) No.205 (‘Government Order’) permitting regularisation of residential encroachments and also claimed protection under the Places of Worship Act.
The respondents opposed, stating that the structure was an encroachment on a water body bund used as a public pathway, constructed without permission. They argued that tax assessment and electricity service do not confer ownership rights, and that the Government Order applied only to residential encroachments on unobjectionable lands. They further submitted that the Places of Worship Act was irrelevant to encroachments on Government land.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute and had put up a temple construction without permission. It was further noted that the petitioner claimed that the temple is in existence from time immemorial and that the structure was built by him in the year 1991. Thus, being a non-residential structure put up on the land of the Government, the Court found that the Government order is not applicable to his case.
Further, the Court emphasised that no patta for the land on the water body obstructing the 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. The Court also noted that the Places of Worship Act was 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 15-08-1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The Court emphasised that neither the intention of the legislation nor any provision in the Places of Worship Act gives protection to a structure put up on Government land by encroaching. Therefore, it was held that the reliance on the Government order dated 26-04-2025 and the Places of Worship Act is only to mislead and does not carry any merit.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.
[N. Kumar v. Collector, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 1163, decided on 06-02-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dr. G.J Ayachandran
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Niranjan S. Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents: S.R.A. Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader, K. Saravanan, G. Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
