Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court's Order Permitting Take Over Of Temple Land For Construction Of Collectorate

The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari while staying the operation of the High Court's order also issued notice in the special leave petition preferred by activist Rangarajan Narasimhan.

Case Before Madras High Court

To preserve the interest of the Saivite Temple and its properties since the original trustees had been deposed in 1998 and state's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had done little for temple's upliftment, renovation and maintenance, the petitioner (Rangarajan Narasimhan) had approached High Court against State's proposal to use the land for setting up of district headquarters of Kallakurichi District.

It was his contention that State's bid to obtain the property was illegal and that there was an alternative land available in the area itself. It was also his contention that there was no good reason for the State to pick up on the temple land other than the fact that the temple might not have a guardian.

Narasimhan had also submitted that the de facto acquisition of the large chunk of temple land was in derogation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and that such de facto acquisition was against the grain of G.O.Ms.No.79 dated May 4, 2017, issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department of the State.

Remarking that establishment of a district collectorate for the purpose of governance at local level on the land belonging to any religious shrine donated by any good Samaritan might be justified as being for the greater public good, the Madras High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had observed that,

"There is no doubt that the temple in the present case may not be in immediate need of funds, except for the purpose of its restoration, and, in any event, there may not be any urgency in the temple looking for anyone to use its land against a monthly or yearly rent since the temple has been, for most parts, non-functional for several decades. However, the larger sentiment behind the setting up of a temple by any spiritually minded person or the intention in donating land to a temple needs to be seen."

"At the end of the day, temples and other religious shrines, almost without exception, are for the benefit of worshippers. If the idea behind every religious shrine is deconstructed, the use of such land for a public purpose that brings governance closer to the local residents may appear to be philosophically in sync. To ensure the constitutional aspiration of local self-governance and to bring governance closer to the residents, bigger districts have been sub-divided into smaller districts so that the governance is no longer from the capital of the State or from the far-flung headquarters of the district and governance is brought close to home in the villages and the taluks."

"Towards such end, if a district collectorate has to be established for the purpose of governance, at the local level on the land belonging to any religious shrine donated by any good Samaritan, it may be justified as being for greater public good."

The bench while allowing the State to use the land for constructing offices of District Collector had also directed to ensure use of various parts of the land exclusively as per the designated purpose and had asked the State to not alter the use of any portion of the land.