[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Sarath vs The Commissioner on 22 January, 2026

                                                                                         WP No. 49192 of 2025




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 22-01-2026

                                                           CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                 WP No. 49192 of 2025

                A.Sarath
                                                                                         Petitioner
                                                                Vs
                1. The Commissioner,
                Corporation Of Greater Chennai,
                Chennai- 600 003.

                2.The Zonal Officer,
                Zone No.VI
                Corporation Of Greater Chennai,
                Pttalam, Chennai- 600 012.

                3.R.Daniel,
                S/O. RAJ,
                25, Gopalapuram, 2nd Street,
                Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar,
                Chennai - 600 082.
                (R3 impleaded vide order dated
                21.01.2026 made in Made
                WMP.2013/2026 in WP.49192/2025
                                                                                         Respondents

                PRAYER This writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
                praying to issue a direction to the 1 st Respondent, directing the 2nd Respondent
                to take necessary action on complaint dated 13.09.2025 in accordance with law.

                                  For Petitioner:        Mr.B.Kaarvannan
                                  For Respondents:       Mr.E.C.Ramesh for R1 and R2
                                                         Mr.R.Udaya Kumar for
                                                         Mr.S.Baskar for R3

                1/16



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )
                                                                                           WP No. 49192 of 2025


                                                             ORDER

I Heard Mr.B.Kaarvannan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and

Mr.R.Udaya Kumar, for Mr.S.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the third

respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property situated in door

No.1, Andal Avenue 1st Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Chennai 600 082. He had

purchased the property on 25.11.2024 by way of a registered document in

Doc.No.4187/2024. The petitioner pleads that prior to the purchase, he had

physically visited the premises and noticed a raised structure adjacent to the

entrance to the property. He was informed that the structure is only a temporary

one and would be removed.

3. On the basis of this assurance, the petitioner proceeded to purchase the

property. While carrying out repairs to his property, and also while taking steps

towards the house warming function, he came to notice that, in the temporary

structure which was already existing, a statue of Mother Mary had been

installed. He pleaded that this structure is obstructing the main entrance of his

house and also causes inconvenience to the pedestrians using the public

pathway. He states that a tall pillar with an amplifier had been installed and an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

electric connection was being drawn illegally from the house located on the

opposite side of the road for the lighting and for operating the amplifier.

Shocked at this development, he made enquiries in the neighbourhood, but

could not get any satisfactory response from anyone.

4. Taking note of the illegal super structure and the unauthorised drawing

of the electricity connection, he approached the respondents by way of a

representation on 13.09.2025. Though the representation was acknowledged, no

action was initiated by the respondents. As the illegal structure had been raised

on a public pavement, the petitioner is before this Court for issue of mandamus

to take necessary action on the complaint that had been lodged by him on

13.09.2025 and for consequential orders.

5. When the matter came up for hearing on 19.12.2025, Ms.N.Lavanya,

learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of Mr.E.C.Ramesh, for the

respondents 1 and 2, stated that the Corporation officials would inspect the said

area and submit a report to this Court. Taking into consideration that Christmas

and New year celebrations were round the corner, I directed the inspection to

take place after the celebrations are completed. I posted the matter yesterday

for hearing.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

6. When I took up the matter for hearing, Mr.S.Baskar brought to my

attention that he had filed an application to implead one Daniel as a party to the

said proceedings.

7. Mr.Daniel pleaded that he has been residing in the property at No.25,

Gopalapuram 2nd Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Chennai-600 082 from the time of

his birth. He pleaded that he has been guided by the Christian values of faith,

service, compassion, and communal harmony. He further pleaded that, in the

year 1995, he, along with few friends, had established a small shrine of Mother

Velankanni. From the very inception, he has been performing prayers and

religious observances with devotion and discipline. He further urged that the

shrine has been in existence for nearly three decades and it has become a place

of faith, hope, and emotional strength for a large number of devotees who are

residing in the locality. He further pleaded that, till the petitioner came along,

the shrine was never a subject matter of objection or any complaint, which

according to Mr.Daniel, indicates its acceptance and importance within the

community. He pleaded that, since 1995, he and his friends have been

continuously involved in maintaining the shrine and carrying on charitable and

welfare activities connected with it.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

8. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, Mr.Daniel states that the

petitioner had purchased the property only in the year 2024. Even at that time

of purchase, he asserts that the petitioner was aware that a statue of Mother

Velankanni has been in existence. Being a resident of the locality, he states that

the petitioner himself has been aware about the shrine and its long-standing

presence. He asserts that the petitioner had purchased the property at a

throwaway price and added that the petitioner is estopped from challenging or

questioning the shrine's existence. Therefore, he urged that the attempt to

demolish the shrine is unjust, arbitrary, and motivated. Appealing to emotions,

Mr.Daniel urged that the shrine has been functioning peacefully for decades and

its removal will not only affect the religious sentiments of devotees, but might

result in breach of communal harmony, which has been carefully nurtured over

the years. Hence, he pleaded that this Court should accept his averments, and

protect the shrine from any arbitrary or unjust action, and ensure justice is done

after hearing all the affected parties. Since Mr. Daniel pleaded that he had

installed the shrine and had been maintaining it, considering him a proper party,

I impleaded him as a party. I posted the matter today for hearing.

9. In the forenoon, Mr.B.Karvannan narrated the averments in the

affidavit and pleaded that as the shrine has been erected on a public road, it is an

encroachment which has to be removed. He pleaded that the electricity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

connection given to the installations in the temple have been illegally drawn

from across the street from a residential property. He pointed out that being an

encroachment, it is the duty of the respondents to invoke the provisions under

Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and sought appropriate

orders to be passed in the writ petition.

10. Mr.Udayakumar, representing Mr.Bhaskar, urged that the shrine has

been in existence for over three decades and that all the residents in the area

offer their worship with utmost devotion. He states that though the petitioner

has pleaded that his property is a house property, it is not so. According to him,

it is a meeting hall and not a residential property. In addition, he urged that there

is a small structure used by persons belonging to the Hindu persuasion for

worshipping Lord Vinayaka. He states that while the petitioner seeks removal of

the encroachment of Mother Velankanni, he is not even lifting a little finger

against the structure erected by Hindus. A curious plea has been taken by him,

by pleading that as the idol is a juristic entity, it has to be put on notice and, only

thereafter, orders can be passed in the writ petition.

11. Mr.E.C.Ramesh brought to my notice that the subject property was

inspected on 08.01.2026 and the Greater Chennai Corporation officials found

that the shrine had indeed been constructed on a public road. Consequently, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

officials had requested the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) to initiate

appropriate action for removal of the superstructure. He further added that, on

19.01.2026, the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), was convinced with

the report filed by his subordinates, and after perusal of “The Town Survey

Land Record (TSLR)”, he had concluded that the structure, in which the

religious idol has been installed, is on a Sarkar Poramboke classified as road.

Consequently, the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) issued a notice to

the third respondent herein, calling upon him to remove the superstructure

within a period of seven days from 19.01.2026.

12. On account of the fervent plea that has been made by Mr.Udayakumar

that Mr.Daniel had installed the shrine, and that demolition of the same would

be prejudicial to the religious sentiments of those who worship the deity, that I

informed him that I would consider deferring the notice issued by the Regional

Deputy Commissioner (Central) dated 19.01.2026, provided the third

respondent, on his own, comes forward and files an affidavit undertaking to

remove the superstructure raised by him on the public road.

13. Mr. Udayakumar requested time to file the affidavit. According to

this request, I kept the matter back so as to enable him to file an affidavit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

14. When the matter was called post-lunch, Mr.Daniel has filed an

affidavit, stating that he got himself impleaded out of pure faith on his religion

and that he might not be competent to single-handedly remove the existing deity

or idol. However, he has given an assurance to this Court that “he will take all

measures to remove the illegal structure within a period of three weeks, as

may be directed by this Court”. He has also made allegations that the writ

petitioner has indulged in acts of “first-degree perjury”.

15. He alleged in the undertaking affidavit that the writ petitioner's

premises is used as a foot court (sic), and an illegal bar at nights and for sale of

crackers and country bombs used during death processions. On account of such

sale by the petitioner, he has made the following statement:

“Petitioner father man seriously injured and there would be a likely

criminal case against him”.

16. For the sake of convenience, the affidavit filed by Mr.Daniel is

scanned and extracted hereunder.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

17. I have carefully considered the submissions and gone through the

records. As the facts have already been narrated in detail, I am not setting forth

the same in this portion of the judgment. Upon perusal of the averments made in

the affidavit and the affidavit filed by Mr. Daniel in support of the impleading

petition, it is clear that the shrine has been constructed on a public pathway laid

in S.R.P Kovil Street (North). It is also not in dispute that it is in front of door

No.1, Block number 30, T.S.N0.79, Kolathur Village, Peravallur, Taluk,

Chennai 600 082. The records produced by Mr.Ramesh pointed out that in the

revenue records, the land on which the structure has been constructed, it has

been classified as Sarkar Poramboke Street to an extent of 43.76 Ares. Of this

extent, the shrine has been constructed to an extent of 8 sq.m on the public road.

18. The plea of Mr. Daniel is that he has put up the structure 30 years ago

and it should not be removed. The Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have

held that it is not open to any person to construct a religious structure on a

public thoroughfare / road and, thereafter, project religious feelings as a ground

to resist the removal of such encroachment (see, Union of India Vs. State of

Gujarat AIR Online 2009 SC 593). It would be apposite to extract the view

expressed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.

46839 of 2019, dated 14-07-2020, wherein Chief Justice Abhay Oka (as he then

was) held as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

“The fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not extend to offering worship or prayer at each and every place. Surely, the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for protecting an illegal structure of a temple which is situated on a footpath. The right to construct an unauthorised temple, that too on a footpath, cannot be said to be an essential part of any religion or religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.”

19. This view is a reflection of the views rendered by the Division Bench

of the Allahabad High Court in Lavkush v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2016 SCC

OnLine All 394] (Division Bench). Applying the said verdict to the present

case, the plea of Mr. Udyakumar deserves to be rejected, and it is accordingly

rejected.

20. Under Section 128 of the Local Bodies Act, it is the duty of the

Commissioner to remove any encroachment from public place, that has been

placed by encroaching a road, street or public place, or on a land belonging to or

vested with the local body. Insofar as the immovable structures are concerned,

the appropriate provision is section 128(1)(b). Under this provision, it is the

duty of the Commissioner to ensure that a street or public place or the land

belonging to or vested with the municipality, is kept free of any encroachments.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

The Section contemplates that the Commissioner should issue a notice for such

removal and the period of notice shall be seven days.

21. A perusal of the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner

(Central) dated 19-01-2026 shows that he has acted in full compliance of

section 128(1)(b). A road or a street does not have any religious character.

Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or

irreligious, in case, it is an encroachment on a street or a public place or on a

land vested to or belonging to a local body, the Commissioner is statutorily

required to remove the same after due notice.

22. The plea of Mr.Daniel in the affidavit filed post-lunch that he is not a

competent authority to single-handedly remove the idol, cannot be

countenanced. This is because, while filing WMP No.2013 of 2026, his specific

plea in paragraph number 3 of the said impleading affidavit is that, he, along

with his friends, well-wishers, had established a small shrine by installing the

idol of Mother Velankanni. The lengthy affidavit, which runs into several

paragraphs, nowhere states that the land either belongs to him or any other

private party. When the area on which the shrine has been constructed is

admittedly a public road, the respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have permitted

the encroachment. The plea that the idol has been in existence for more than 30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )

years, is no defence at all. Every minute, nay, second that an illegal

superstructure is on a public road or a street, it gives a fresh cause of action to

the Commissioner to invoke his power under Section 128 of the Act.

23. When admittedly, the structure is on a public road, the petitioner

would be entitled for mandamus as prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition is

ordered in the following terms:

i. The respondents 1 and 2 shall proceed with the 128(1)(b) and 128(2)

proceedings initiated by them in RDC(C).O.C.No.188/2026, dated

19.01.2026 in full vigor;

ii. The notice period served on Mr.Daniel expires on 27.01.2026;

iii. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) shall wait for any response

that might be given by Mr.Daniel to the notice issued under Section

128(1)(b) of the Act;

iv. The Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the said

provision, and ensure its implementation, on or before 10.02.2026.

24. However, insofar as the allegations of the third respondent against the

petitioner for acts of perjury and for illegal usage of his property is concerned, it

need not be gone into in this writ petition. If Mr.Daniel is of the view that the

writ petitioner has committed acts which invited the wrath of law, it is open to

him to initiate such appropriate proceedings as may be open to him.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 09:04:11 pm )