'For Protecting Devotees' Sentiments, They Attempted To Give Away God': Madras HC On State Giving Sand Dunes To School In Exchange For Temple Land

Noting that the land initially allotted for the school was sand dunes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the state had acted recklessly and given away sand dunes for development without considering its ecological impact. The court observed that the sand dunes were also an incarnation of God and without realising it, the state had given away God itself to protect the sentiments of the devotees.

““Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he's destroying is this God he's worshiping”. This case is a clear example.Without realising that these Sand Dunes are also the incarnation of Lord Sri Devanatha Swami, who protects its land and people, the authorities deemed it fit to allocate to the petitioner, for development. In their endeavour to protect the sentiments of the devotees of the Temple, they had attempted to give away God himself. Without considering the ecological importance of the sand dunes, the Government acted recklessly, in violation of the public trust doctrine imposed upon it,” the court said.

Background

The school was operating on an area of 5.77 acres in Koothapakkam Village, Cuddalore District. The land was purchased by the institution from the government for a valuable consideration, through a Government Order. Objections were raised which respect to parts of the land, as it was alleged that a part of the land, measuring 3.40 cents was being used for Arulmigu Devanatha Swamy Temple. It was pointed out that the land, which was under the control of the HR & CE Department, was later taken over by the Government and erroneously auctioned. The Government Order was then resumed.

When the school challenged this before the court, considering communal harmony, the school agreed to accept allotment of alternate land instead of the land in question. Subsequently, the present land was allotted to the school in alternative to the land given by the school.

The School argued that the State had undervalued the land already given away. It was also argued that the land given by the school was in Cuddalore town but the alternative land allotted to it was in Bhavanagiri Taluk, 34 kms away from Cuddalore. The school also argued that the alternative land could not be used for development as it was classified as sand dunes.

The school argued that when it had given away valuable land considering communal harmony, the state should have honoured its promise and allocated land within Cuddalore town. The school also argued that if suitable land was not found, the State should have atleast paid the admitted value.

The State, on the other hand, informed the court that the land was allotted when a contempt petition was filed for not allotting land. It was submitted that when the Principal and the Correspondent of the school had sent a letter to the District Collector stating that they did not agree with the said land and had suggested other lands, which was being considered by the government.

Following this the State also informed the court that there was difficulty in allotting the lands suggested by the school and if the school approached the District Collector, land could be allocated subject to legal validity and mutual agreement, with the approval of the District Collector.

The court noted that when the school had given land worth Rs 8 crore in Cuddalore town, it was given an alternate land which had a value of Rs 2 crore and was located 34 kilometers from the town without any road access. The court added that the state should have acted conscientiously, but the state action directly contradicted the purpose and spirit of the earlier order.

The court thus directed the State to allot a land of equal value for establishing the educational institution, preferably inside the town or not more than 10 or 12 kilometres away. The court added that if no suitable land was identified, the land's value should be given to the school.

Counsel for Appellant: Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel for M/s. Father Xavier Associates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. Ravindran, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Senthil Murugan, Spl. Govt. Pleader

Case Title: St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111

Case No: WP No. 25256 of 2025