Temple Standing For Over 50 Years In Layout Park Cannot Be Treated As Encroachment; Is Part And Parcel Of Park: Madras High Court The Court dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.1lakh, observing that the petition appeared to be filed with malafide intent to incite communal unrest. CASEDETAILS Case Title Jesudass Cornelius v. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District & Ors. Case No. WP No.1200 of 2022 Bench Justice Krishnan Ramasamy Date of Order 04 March 2026 Result Petition Dismissed with Costs Petition Dismissed with Rs.1 lakh cost

Temple Standing For Over 50 Years In Layout Park Cannot Be Treated As Encroachment; Is Part And Parcel Of Park: Madras High Court
The Court dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.1lakh, observing that the petition appeared to be filed with malafide intent to incite communal unrest.

CASEDETAILS

Case Title Jesudass Cornelius v. The District
Collector, Thiruvallur District & Ors.
Case No. WP No.1200 of 2022
Bench Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Date of Order 04 March 2026
Result Petition Dismissed with Costs

Petition Dismissed with Rs.1 lakh cost
The Madras High Court has held that a Hindu Temple that has been in existence for over five decades on land earmarked as a park in an approved layout cannot be characterised as an encroachment, and must instead be considered an integral part of the park itself.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while dismissing the writ petition, went a step further and imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000(Rupees One Lakh) on the petitioner, payable to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai, characterising the petition as one filed with malafide intent to trigger communal tension.
Background of the Case
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Thiruvallur, and the Commissioner, Thiruverkadu Municipality, to maintain land in Survey Nos. 75/2to 5, Veeraraghavan Village, Thiruverkadu, as a park and playground as earmarked in the layout approved by the Director of Town Planning.

While the core relief sought was maintenance of the park, the petitioner additionally raised the issue of a Hindu Temple allegedly situated on the very portion of the land demarcated as a park and playground in the approved layout a which the petitioner contended that had not been marked in the original approved layout plan.
Respondents’ Position
Counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the Hindu Temple had been standing on the subject land for well over five decades, and that it occupied only 3,000 sq.ft. ( subsequently clarified as 2,260 sq.ft.) of the total 9,000 sq.ft. area. It was submitted that the remaining 6,740sq.ft. was more than sufficient to maintain the park and playground for the benefit of the public.

On the question of maintenance, the respondents undertook to consider the petitioner’s request if relevant documents including the approved layout plan and the Director of Town Planning’s approval were placed on record.
Court’s Observations
“The construction of a Temple and worshipping of Deity is also a way for relaxation, which promotes the mental well-being of majority of residents of the subject layout. Therefore, at any cost, the Temple has to be considered as a part and parcel of the Park.”

The Court noted that the Temple had been in existence for more than five decades and that, given this long-standing presence, the petitioner ought to have raised his objections at a much earlier stage. Raising the grievance after such an inordinate delay, the Court observed, was indicative of an ulterior motive.

Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that parks serve as essential public spaces designed for recreation, exercise, social gatherings, and the promotion of physical and mental well-being. In the same vein, the Court found that religious worship and the maintenance of a temple serve an equally valid community purpose, acting as a source of mental well-being for the majority of residents in the locality.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Temple, constructed at the wishes of the majority of layout residents and worshipped therein for over five decades, was not an encroachment but a reflection of community will. The Court reasoned that the belief and faith of majority people in and around the subject layout in worshipping the deity therein, could not be disturbed merely on account of a belated allegation of encroachment. The Court also clarified that the said temple is not constructed in any area earmarked for lake, river, etc., so as to obstruct the public means.