State Can Acquire Temple Land For Public Projects Like Metro, No Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 25, 26: Madras High Court

Justice Anand Venkatesh held that it was open for the CMRL to acquire the property of a nearby temple, as per its original plan. Borrowing the words of the Kerala High Court in a recentdecision, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the almighty would show kindness and benevolence on all for the development of metro station, which would benefit lakhs of people.

“This Court, like P.V.Kunhikrishnan,J, fervently believes that the Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness and benevolence for the development of a metro rail station, which will benefit lakhs of people from all segments of society, some of whom may well be devotees, who visit the temple. In the words of the Kerala High Court, “God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.” the court observed.

The court also noted that lands belonging to religious institutions were not exempt from land acquisition and such acquisition of the temple lands would not be in violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

“Thus, the law is well settled that the acquisition of lands belonging to religious institutions, in exercise of the State's power of eminent domain, is a permissible exercise, which does not violate any of their fundamental rights under Article 25 or 26 of The Constitution,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by United India Insurance challenging a notice issued by CMRL under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu (Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes) Act 1997 asking it to show cause as to why its properties should not be acquired for the construction of the proposed Metro Station.

The court was informed that the CMRL had initially proposed to have the entry/exit point of the Metro station within the premises of the temples – Arulmighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar temple and Durgai Amman Temple. However, a PIL was filed by an organisation claiming to represent the devotees challenging the same. During the course of the hearing of the PIL, a joint inspection was conducted and the CMRL gave an undertaking to the High Court stating that the entr/exit points would be shifted to the property of the Insurance company. Based on this undertaking, the present notice was issued to the company.

The insurance company argued that the show cause notice was of no consequence since CMRL had already decided to acquire the property. Thus, it was argued that the notice was an empty formality and the opportunity of hearing was only a post-decisional hearing. The company also informed the court that it had spent Rs. 250 crore on the construction of the building, which was done after obtaining an NOC from CMRL, and thus, there was a legitimate expectation that there would be no disturbance to its building in the future project. It was also contended that the company was not made a party in the earlier PIL and thus, the undertaking given by CMRL in that proceeding will not bind the company.

CMRL, on the other hand, submitted that it had initially proposed to acquire the temple property, but since the devotees made a fervent plea to not disturb the temple, it had decided to utilize the land available on the opposite side. It was submitted that CMRL had not taken any final decision and was not acting with any preconceived mind. Pointing out that the project has been on standstill, CMRL argued that the company could raise its objections, which would be considered independently.

The court noted that as per the records, it had been decided to relocate the Vinayagar deity to another place identified by the HR&CE department. With respect to the Durgai Amman temple, the court noted that as per an alternative plan, the Gopuram of the temple was proposed to be shifted 5 meters inside the temple and would be reinstated after the CMRL project was completed. The court also noted that though it was claimed that the temples were very old and were not to be disturbed, the temples were opened only in 1960 and were not 100-year-old temples as claimed.

The court also agreed with the company and observed that the notice was a post-decisional hearing since CMRL had already given an undertaking before the court to acquire the property. The court also observed that the action of CMRL was precluded by the principle of promissory estoppel. The court noted that while giving the NOC, the company was made to believe that the company's building will not be disturbed for the project, thus prompting it to spend crores of money for construction of the office building.

The court noted that CMRL could not take a different stand now based on an earlier proceeding to which the company was not even a party as the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“The CMDA, by granting approval, has induced the petitioner to invest funds. To allow the CMDA and the CMRL to sing a different tune at this juncture and that too on the basis of a proceeding, to which the petitioner was not even a party, would be grossly unfair and arbitrary. It would clearly tantamount to an abuse of power violating Article 14. As pointed out supra, the consent given by the CMRL before the First Bench of this Court cannot bind the petitioner since it was not made a party nor was heard before such orders were passed,” the court said.

Though CMRL had argued that the principle of promissory estoppel would not be applicable in the present case, the court ruled that the defences to promissory estoppel were unavailable in the present case.

The court thus quashed the show cause notice issued to the company. The court added that it would be open to CMRL to proceed with its original plan to acquire the property of the temple. The court also desisted from imposing any cost on the State and the organisation claiming to represent the devotees, but hoped that they realise that the highest aim of religion was to unite mankind

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Narayan, SC for Mr. Keerthikiran Murali

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, AG assisted by both Mr. A. Selvendran, SGP for R1 & R2 & Mr. B. Vijay, Standing Counsel, Mrs. P. Veena Suresh, Standing Counsel, Mr. Ramamoorthy

Case Title: United India Insurance v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

Case No: WP.No.33116 of 2024