Temporary Surrender Of Land Endowed To Religious Institution For Public Infrastructure Not 'Transfer' Under Madras HR & CE Act: Kerala HC

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were delivering the judgement in a writ petition challenging the road widening project leading to the Madayikavu Bhagavathy Temple in Kannur District.

Sree Madayikavu Bhagavathy Temple is situated in a rock popularly known as 'Madayipara', which is situated about 40 meters above the sea level and is rich in fresh water.

The petitioner has submitted that the road leading to the Madayipara Temple from the PWD road has a width of 3.5 metres and a length of about 300 meters is in a dilapidated condition. It was further submitted that the proposal for widening the existing road to 8.5 metres is proposed without acquiring the temple land and without awarding fair compensation to the temple authorities.

The Section 29 of the Madras HR & CE Act mandates that any exchange, sale, mortgage, or lease of immovable property belonging to a religious institution is void unless sanctioned by the Commissioner.

The Court drew a clear distinction between transfer of proprietary interest and temporary permission for use, and held that the widening project involved a temporary surrender of land by the temple trustee to facilitate public access.

The Court observed that there was no transfer of ownership, leasehold interest, or creation of encumbrance over the property and consequently, the arrangement did not dall within the statutory categories of “exchange, sale, mortgage or lease” under Section 29.

“The temporary surrender of property for the purpose of widening the road cannot be construed as a transfer of interest in immovable property, which requires prior sanction under Section 29 of the Madras HR & CE Act. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the proposed project is legally unsustainable” the Court noted.

The petitioner has also contended that Madayipara is known for its geographical peculiarities and if the road is widened for 8.5 meters , it would adversely affect the biodiversity, natural flora and fauna of the landscape.

The Court relied on the decisions in NHAI v Pandarinathan Govindarajulu [(2021) 6 SCC 693], and Auroville Foundation v Navroz Kersasp Mody [(2025) 4 SCC 150], to underline that sustainable development is the balancing concept between ecology and development.

“We are of the view that the likely environmental impact is minimal and does not pose any real or substantial threat to the ecology, flora, or fauna of Madayipara.” Court noted.

The Court thus disposed of the petition with direction to balance the developmental requirements with the need for environmental protection which included the direction to the Contractor to undertake afforestation by planting not less than 400 trees which are indigenous and compatible to geographical features of the locality to counter the trees lost in the process of widening.

The Court has also directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and other competent authority of the Forest Department to formulate and finalise a comprehensive afforestation scheme in Madayipara.

While disposing of the matter, the Court has posted in for a compliance report on 16 July.

Case Title: Vijesh C K v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Case No: WP(C) 3407/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

Counsel for Petitioner: K.M Sathyanatha Menon, T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri

Counsel for Respondent: K. Mohanakannan, Mahesh V Ramkrishnan, R. Surendran, S Rajmohan (Sr. GP), R. Ranjanie, H. Praveen