'Vast Temple Land Being Encroached': Madras High Court Summons HR & CE Officials, Says No Meaningful Action Taken

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the officers of the department had not taken steps to remove the encroachment and restore the temple lands.

“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,” the court said.

Perusing the reports submitted by the department, the court noted that the lands were being encroached by influential persons with the connivance of the revenue officials and temple trustees. The court remarked that the department, which is the statutory guardian of the temple properties, had failed to discharge its duties, forcing the devotees to approach the court.

“From the report, it is seen that 27 Government officials, 49 industrialists and businesspersons, and 38 influential individuals are in occupation of the temple lands. The report, however, does 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,” the court said.

The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Radhakrishnan over noncompliance of an earlier order. Radhakrishnan had originally approached the court for removal of encroachment of the property belonging to the temple. During the hearing of the writ petition, it was revealed that 507.88 acres of temple land was under encroachment. The HR&CE was directed to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment. Radhakrishnan had filed the contempt petition alleging that this order had not been complied with.

The court noted that though the court passed the order 6 years ago, the HR & CE department had not taken any effective steps to recover the lands. The court noted that even after taking cognisance, there was no substantial progress in implementing the court order.

The department submitted that steps had been taken to remove encroachment, but the attempts failed due to agitations by the encroachers and due to lack of cooperation from the police, revenue, electricity board, and fire service authorities.

The Additional Advocate General informed the court that the department had proposed to constitute a monitoring committee comprising of senior officers to oversee the implementation.

The court had, however, found these actions to be namesake and suo motu impleaded the then and present officials of the HR & CE department. Upon appearance, the officers stated that they were unable to implement the court order due to non-cooperation from the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police, Karur.

The court noted that though it had issued directions to the District Administration asking them to give assistance, no substantial progress had been made. The court noted that since many influential persons were encroaching the property, the District Administration and the Police were reluctant to cooperate with the HR & CE department. The court added that the Commissioner of HR & CE had not brought this issue to the notice of the Secretaries of Government, the Revenue Department and the Home Department, which was contributing to the continued noncompliance.

Thus, noting that there was contempt, the court decided to summon the officers before taking further action.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Radhakrishnan Party-in-person

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Subburaj Special Government Pleader, Mr. P. Athimoolapandan Standing Counsel, Mr.V.Chandrasekar, Mr.K.Govindarajan, Mr.M.Saravanan

Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others

Case No: Cont.P(MD)No.371 of 2024