No One Can Alienate Or Create Encumbrance On Land Belonging To Deity; Laws Of Limitation & Adverse Possession Not Applicable: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple. Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit...
The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple.
Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit Person of Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple seeking directions to the concerned authorities to restore the patta of the temple land.
“It is settled proposition of law that if the land belongs to Idol/Deity, no person can alienate or create encumbrance unless due process of law. In this case, property of the Temple or person incharge of the Temple had not transferred the property. Only during the Town Survey, the land was recorded as Sarkar Poramboke. It is well settled proposition of law that the law of adverse possession or Law of Limitation against the Deity/Idol/Temple would not be applicable,” the court observed.
The temple argued that the subject property had been under the temple's possession for 240 years. Further, the Town Survey Register states that the property has been blocked from any registration since 2021 but the Patta land was wrongly classified as “Sarkar Poramboke Land” in the register. The temple alleged that the CMRL, wrongly considering the land as government land, has planned to construct a Corridor 5 alignment right over the temple. It was also informed that though the Executive officer of the temple made a representation to the District Revenue Officer to rectify the error, there was no response which prompted the temple to approach the High Court.
While resisting the plea, the official respondents contended that the subject land was classified as a government puramboke land in 1998 and the final notification was published under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Boundaries Act 1923. It was further submitted that if there was any dispute regarding the Town survey, a challenge had to be made within three years but in the present case, the temple had approached the court after more than 2 decades.
CMRL informed the court that they had acquired land for the Metro Rail Project which was far away from the Deity and temple and that the project was also not disturbing the deity. The CMRL thus sought to dismiss the plea as against it.
The court agreed with the temple authorities and observed that adverse possession does not apply to land belonging to a deity. The court thus directed the authorities to issue notice to the temple's Executive officer, rival claimants, interested parties, objectors, and aggrieved party and conduct an inquiry according to law. The court also directed the authorities to complete the exercise within two months.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Ramamoorthi
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, and Mr.Aditya Chandramouli SC for CMDA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
Case Title: Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration
Case No: W.P.No.33554 of 2023