In a significant development, the Madras High Court has recently issued an order demanding local authorities in the Kancheepuram district to take action against encroachers on temple property. Notably, the court explicitly stated that the temple deity is to be considered a minor, emphasizing that any delay in liberating the land would amount to a violation of the rights belonging to this minor deity. This noteworthy ruling was made in the case of T Thanthoni and others v Executive Officer, and it is expected to have far-reaching implications.
Justice SM Subramaniam, in an order dated April 26, strongly condemned the actions of land grabbers attempting to encroach upon temple property for their personal gain. The judge deemed such attempts as “intolerable” and emphasized the need for urgent action to address this issue.
According to the order, any endeavor by land grabbers to seize the temple land, regardless of the method employed, was deemed unacceptable. The occupation of the valuable temple property through litigation, causing financial harm to the temple, was specifically highlighted as a matter requiring immediate attention. The order stressed that any delay in addressing this issue would result in the violation of the rights of the minor deity.
This significant ruling serves as a call to promptly and appropriately handle any encroachment upon temple land, underscoring the importance of protecting the rights and interests of the temple and its revered deity.
A group of 20 petitioners, all self-proclaimed agricultural cultivators, had their pleas heard by the Court. These petitioners were contesting eviction proceedings initiated against them by the temple in question.
The petitioners, who were associated with an agricultural cooperatives society, claimed that they had entered into a lease agreement with the temple back in 1969. As per the terms of the agreement, the temple land was designated for the agricultural cultivation activities of the society’s members. The Court took cognizance of these pleas, examining the intricate details of the lease agreement and the claims made by the petitioners.
Despite the expiration of the lease agreement in 1981, the petitioners persisted in occupying the land and failed to fulfill their rent obligations to society. Eventually, the society was dissolved, and in 2012, a local revenue court issued an eviction order against the petitioners. The court also directed them to pay outstanding rent arrears amounting to over ₹50 lahks.
In response, the petitioners challenged the eviction order and subsequent proceedings, contending before the High Court that they were not given a fair hearing as required by the Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act of 1961.
Conversely, the counsel representing the respondent argued that the petitioners lacked the legal standing to invoke the provisions of the Public Trust Act against the temple. They emphasized that the subject property belonged to the temple, and no agreement existed between the temple and the petitioners. These contentions formed the basis of the arguments presented by both sides duringUpon examination, the High Court observed that the majority of the petitioners had ceased agricultural activities on the disputed land long ago. Instead, they were found to be subletting the land to third parties, engaging in commercial activities for personal financial gain.
The High Court, in its ruling, stated that the cases at hand exemplified situations where the petitioners sought to continue occupying the temple property without any legal authority or tenancy agreement, under the pretext of being members of the third respondent society. The court deemed the petitioners’ actions as unjust and illegal, emphasizing that they were profiting from subletting the property for commercial purposes. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the plea and instructed the Kancheepuram District Collector to enforce the 2012 eviction order issued by the revenue court.
It is worth noting that in a previous 2019 order regarding illegal encroachments, Justice Subramaniam had directed state authorities to eradicate all encroachments carried out in the name of religious institutions. The judge asserted that the temple deity held legal standing, and any encroachment, even if executed in the name of the deity, must be handled in accordance with the law.
Advocate A Palaniappan represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocate R Singaravelan, Advocate VS Jagadeesan, and Additional Government Pleader T Arunkumar appeared on behalf of the respondent temple. Government Advocate K Karthikeyan represented the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.
Written by – Sohini Chakraborty intern under Legal Vidhiya
