Madras High Court: In the present petition, a devotee of Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur, approached the Court seeking action against officials who had failed to remove encroachments from over 500 acres of temple land, despite clear directions issued earlier. As no meaningful steps were taken to restore the temple property, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings for continued non-compliance.
The Division Bench of P. Velmurugan and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., for effective adjudication and to fix accountability, suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Karur, as a party respondent to the proceedings. The Court further highlighted that the encroachments appeared to have occurred with the connivance of certain revenue officials and temple trustees, including the HR & CE Department, which, despite being the statutory guardian of temple properties, failed to discharge its duties.
Background:
The case arose from longstanding encroachments on temple lands belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple, Karur. A total of 507.88 acres were found to be under unauthorised occupation and were classified into five categories based on the nature of encroachments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (‘HR & CE’) to remove the encroachments and restore the temple properties.
Although the order was passed nearly six years earlier, the HR & CE Department failed to take effective steps to recover the lands. The petitioner filed a contempt application due to lack of substantial progress. The HR & CE Department reported on 09-09-2024 that attempts made on 19-07-2022 and 25-08-2022 failed due to agitations by encroachers and lack of cooperation from the police, revenue, electricity board, and fire service authorities.
Despite these reports, no meaningful progress was made. The Court, holding that only namesake actions were being taken, by its order dated 03-10-2024, suo motu impleaded the then and present officials of the HR & CE Department and issued statutory notice to them. On 30-10-2024, the contemnors appeared before the Court. During the hearing, the HR & CE officials made a categorical statement that they were in a miserable position, unable to implement the order due to non-cooperation by the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police, Karur.
Considering the submissions, the Court fixed responsibility on the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police, as threats were made to the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Balasubramaniya Swamy Temple, Vennaimalai, and to the Joint Commissioner, Tirupathur, by encroachers, preventing them from executing the Court’s orders. The Court stated it would not permit the hanging of Damocles’ sword over HR & CE officials in implementing its orders. If any officer was unable to discharge duty due to apprehended danger, it reflected lawlessness in the State.
It was emphasised that the District Administration and the Superintendent of Police, Karur, were responsible for ensuring that HR & CE officers, particularly the Executive Officer and Joint Commissioner, were able to function without fear. Considering the agitations and threats, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Karur District, to provide adequate protection to the offices of the Executive Officer and Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, until further orders, and to deploy separate police officers for their safety and security.
Consequently, a report was filed by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, indicating certain actions taken category-wise.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the report and observed that, despite the passage of considerable time, there was no substantial progress in implementing its orders. The Court noted that the HR & CE Department cited non-availability of documents as the reason for the delay, stating that such documents were not furnished by the District Administration. However, the Court had already directed the HR & CE Department to obtain those documents from the District Archives, if they were not available with the Collectorate, but this was not done.
The Court emphasised that, from the report, it was seen that 27 Government officials, 49 industrialists and businesspersons, and 38 influential individuals were in occupation of the temple lands. The report, however, did not disclose their designations or the nature of occupation. The Court highlighted that the encroachments appeared to have occurred with the connivance of certain revenue officials and temple trustees. The HR & CE Department, which was the statutory guardian of temple properties, failed to discharge its duties.
The Court noted that, since several influential persons were among the encroachers, the District Administration and Police appeared reluctant to cooperate with the HR & CE Department in removing the encroachments. Despite affidavits from the Joint Commissioner and Executive Officers highlighting this non-cooperation, the Commissioner, HR & CE, did not bring the issue to the notice of the Secretaries to Government, Revenue Department and Home Department. The Commissioner’s inaction therefore also contributed to the continued non-compliance.
The Court emphasised that a vast extent of temple lands remained under encroachment. Despite repeated orders of the Court, both in the main petition and in the present contempt proceedings, no meaningful action was taken to restore the temple lands. Hence, the Court was inclined to proceed further in the contempt application.
For effective adjudication and to fix accountability, the Court suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Karur, as a party respondent to the proceedings. Before proceeding further in the contempt application, the Court directed Respondents 2 to 18 to be present before it on 17-10-2025 at 10:30 a.m. Furthermore, the revenue officials were expected to appear along with all relevant revenue records, including the A-register, pertaining to the subject properties.
[A. Radhakrishnan v. P. Madhusudhanreddy, Cont. P (MD) No.371 of 2024, decided on 10-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: A. Radhakrishnan, Party-in-person
For the Respondents: Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General assisted by P. Subburaj Special Government Pleader, P. Athimoolapandan Standing Counsel, V. Chandrasekar, K. Govindarajan, M. Saravanan