Temple Existing In Public Park For 5 Decades Not Encroachment, Is A Place For Mental Well-Being Of People: Madras High Court

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the temple has existed in the land for almost 5 decades and could not be said to be an encroachment. The court noted that the temple was a place for the mental well-being of the people and could be treated as a part of the park. The court also made it clear that the belief and faith of the general public cannot be disturbed on mere allegations of encroachment.

“The belief and faith of the general public, those who worship the Deity, cannot be disturbed merely on the ground of alleged encroachment. Further, in this case, with the wishes of majority of residents of the subject layout, the Temple is constructed in a portion of an area, which was earmarked as “park” and the residents therein are worshipping the Deity in that Temple for more than 5 decades. Thus, it would be considered as a place for mental well-being of the majority of people living therein and the same shall be treated as part and parcel of the park,” the court said.

The court noted that the petition was filed with a malafide intention to cause a communal riot and decided to dismiss it with costs. The court thus directed the petitioner to pay Rs 1 Lakh to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks.

“As stated above, this petition, which has been filed with malafide intention to create communal riots, appears to be motivated one. Therefore, considering the said aspect, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition with huge cost,” court observed.

The petitioner, Jesudass Cornelius had submitted that the layout of subject land was approved by the Director of Town Planning on April 20, 1960 and specific areas were earmarked as park and playground. The petitioner argued that the authorities were not maintain the park and playground. It was submitted that a temple existed in the subject land, and the same was not marked in the approved layout. The petitioner argued that the temple was situated in the area earmarked for park and playground and sought action by the authorities to remove the same.

The authorities, on the other hand, submitted that it would consider the petitioner's request, if proper documents are produced including the layout of the subject land, approval granted by the Director of Town Planning, etc. With respect to the temple, the authorities submitted that the temple has existed in the land for more than 5 decades and is situated in 3000 sq.ft out of the total area of 9000 sq ft. The authorities thus submitted that the playground could very well be maintained in the remaining 6000 sq ft.

The court observed that if the temple has been in existence for more than 5 decades, the petitioner should have made objections at an earlier stage. The court added that the petitioner could not come forward with allegations of encroachment by the temple after such an exorbitant delay.

The court remarked that while parks were essential for enjoyment, recreation and relaxation, the construction of the Temple and worship of Deity was also a way for relaxation, which promotes the mental well-being of the majority. Thus, the court opined that the temple would be treated as part of the park, as a place of relaxation, which reduces the mental stress of the people.

The court also agreed with the respondent that the temple is situated only in an area of 2260 sq ft and will not affect the movement of the public in the park. Noting that the majority of people were worshipping the deity for more than 5 decades, the court observed that the temple cannot be viewed as an encroachment, but only as a part and parcel of the park.

Thus, the court dismissed the plea and imposed costs.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.M.Sneha

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.T.K.Saravanan AGP, Mr.P.Srinivas, Mr.B.Manoharan, Mr.Siva Shanmugam, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA

Case Title: Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 166

Case No: WP No. 1200 of 2022