“God will forgive us”: Madras High Court on proposal to acquire temple land for metro station

The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) to proceed with its plan to acquire land near two Hindu temples for setting up a metro station [United India Insurance company v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.]..Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that God would only shower kindness for such a project that could benefit lakhs of people.The Court reiterated that even lands belonging to religious institutions are not exempt from land acquisition for such public projects, nor do they have any special consideration in such matters.“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 judge said..The Court further drew inspiration from the Kerala High Court’s verdict in the case of Balakrishna Pillai vs. Union of India, wherein it had observed that “for the development of the National Highway, if the religious institutions are affected, God will forgive us.”Similarly, Justice Venkatesh expressed that God will forgive the takeover of a certain part of land belonging to temples if the development of a metro station that could benefit the temple’s devotees as well.“This Court, like PV Kunhikrishnan J, (Kerala High Court judge) 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,’” Justice Venkatesh said..Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness for the development of a metro rail station, which will benefit lakhs of people.Madras High Court.By way of background, the CMRL had initially proposed to acquire the land near two temples to build a metro station. The two temples said to be affected were Rathina Vinayagar Temple and Durgai Amman Temple.Temple devotees opposed the move and an organization named the Aalayam Kaapom Foundation, which represented temple devotees, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging such land acquisition. In response, the CMRL informed a Bench led by the Chief Justice (first Bench) that it could acquire land on the other side of the area, which housed a head office belonging to the United India Insurance company. An inspection was also undertaken, with even judges of the first Bench visiting the proposed alternative site. The first Bench eventually closed the PIL after recording the CMRL's proposal to acquire land from the site housing the United India Insurance building instead of the temple land. .The insurance company was then issued a notice asking them to show cause as to why their land should not be acquired to set up the metro station. United India Insurance challenged this. It pointed out that it was not even made a party to the PIL case where CMRL proposed to take the insurance company's land for the metro station's construction. In its petition, which was heard by Justice Venkatesh, the insurance company also highlighted that it had spent ₹250 crores on developing its building, which itself was a unique architectural marvel, after it got a no-objection certificate (NOC) from various authorities, including the CMRL itself. It added that the show cause notice was also an empty formality since CMRL had already undertaken to the High Court that it would proceed with the acquisition of the insurance company's land for the metro station. This was done behind the insurance company's back, United Insurance added. All of this, therefore, was liable to be set aside, United India Insurance argued. .Justice Venkatesh agreed, finding that CMRL's actions amounted to gross violation of the principles of natural justice on all levels since CMRL had undertaken to acquire the land belonging to the insurance company without first informing it of the same. "In effect, the 5th respondent (organisation of temple devotees), the CMRL and the State Authorities appear to have staged their Hamlet, without the Prince of Denmark," the Court said.It observed that CMRL chose to change the location of the land acquisition only because of the PIL and not on grounds of factors such as public safety, convenience or technical factors. It added that CMRL was not right to resort to such a move, more so when it had earlier given an NOC to United Insurance to set up its head office in the area. "It would be completely contrary to public interest to tear down a building/ or portions thereof of a recently constructed structure put up at a cost of Rs.200 crores by a public sector entity, after obtaining all clearances and the NOC from the CMRL and that too on the basis of a proceeding held completely behind its back," the Court said. Further, the Court noted that even if the CMRL went back to its original plan of acquiring land near two temples, it was not as if the temples themselves would have to be demolished. The Court noted that the original plan would only lead to some space constraints for devotees of the Durgai Amman temple and that the temple's Gopuram (gateway) and a deity would have to be shifted to another area while the construction is going on. The Gopuram and the deity can be restored once the construction is over, the Court observed. .The Court, therefore, allowed United India Insurance's plea and quashed the land acquisition notice issued against its property. Justice Venkatesh also dismissed an argument that the insurance company's land was chosen after a visit from High Court judges."The inspection that had taken place, without notice to the petitioner right under its nose, sets up an impregnable defence of patent violation of the principles of natural justice," the single judge reasoned.The Court said that CMRL is free to proceed in line with their original plan."Though this is an eminently fit case to impose exemplary costs, this Court desists from doing so in the hope that the State and the (organisation of temple devotees) realize the true meaning of the words of Swami Vivekananda that 'the highest aim of religion is to unite mankind and serve humanity,'" Justice Venkatesh added..Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan and Advocate Keerthikiran Murali represented United India Insurance..Advocate General PS Raman assisted by Special Government Pleader Selvendran represented the Tamil Nadu government and the CMRL. Standing Counsel B Vijay also represented the CMRL. .The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was represented by Standing Counsel P Veena Suresh.Advocate Ramamoorthy appeared for the Aalayam Kaapom Foundation..[Read Judgment]