Even if GOD encroaches upon public space, courts will direct removal of such encroachments: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Friday took a serious view of a temple being constructed on a public road and stated that even if God encroaches upon public space, courts would direct removal since public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded [Arulmighu Palapattarai v Pappayee]..Justice N Anand Venkatesh. while dismissing an appeal, stressed that no matter who committed an illegal act of encroachment on a public street, the same should be prevented.“There used to be a time when some individuals developed an impression that they can encroach upon a public space in the name of a temple or by planting an idol in that place,” the judge said.Courts are no more concerned about who or in what name such encroachments take place, the single-judge made it clear."We have reached a situation where even if GOD encroaches upon a public space, Courts will direct removal of such encroachments, since public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded and upheld by Courts," the Court added..The judge further said that courts could not be “hoodwinked” by encroachments in the name of God.“We have enough temples and no God has made any request to construct new temples by encroaching upon public space or by raising a structure in the name of the temple,” the Court said..We have enough temples and no God has made any request to construct new temples by encroaching upon public space or by raising a structure in the name of the temple.Justice N Anand Venkatesh.The initial plaintiffs had moved the trial court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up barricades preventing their access to a public street. The plaintiffs claimed that the same was their only access and thus, it would not be open to anyone to prevent their use..The defendant, on the other hand, took a stand that the street vested with the Mariamman Temple. It was stated that the construction was done by a committee which must be made a party to the suit.The Municipality also took a stand that the street belonged to the first defendant therefore, the plaintiffs did not have any right to question the construction. The trial court had dismissed the suit..However, on second appeal, the trial court's decision was overturned, and it was held that the municipality was very much in control of the street and could not be allowed to take a different stand. Therefore, it had all the rights to remove any encroachment that took place on the public street.It was also held that there was no need to add the government as a party to the suit, and that the defendant did not have any right to put up any structure on the property which was used as a street accessible to the general public. Agreeing with this order, the temple administration moved the High Court..Justice Venkatesh found that it “quite unfortunate” that the municipality had virtually attempted to wash off their hands by blindly supporting a flagrant encroachment made by the temple.“This sudden change of stand taken by the 2nd defendant was probably due to some official who was handling the case wrongly understanding the term “God Fearing”.”.The High Court further found that there was no requirement to approach this case from the standpoint of right of easement, since the plaintiffs did not need to prove that the street was their only access.“Even assuming that the plaintiffs have an alternate access to their property, that does not mean that the plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to use a public street for ingress and egress to their property,” the judge stated..It also pointed out that photographs submitted to the Court showed that the plaintiffs were completely prevented from having any access to the public street from their property, and that they literally had to be air dropped into their property.“The conduct of the 1st defendant Temple is highly condemnable,” it added..Thus, the Court found no reasons to interfere with the appellate court’s finding. The defendant was directed to remove the entire construction within two months, failing which the municipality was directed to remove the structure and ensure that the public street was kept free from any encroachment..Advocate S Kalyanaraman appeared for the appellant while the respondents were represented by Advocates P Srinivas and A Arulmozhi..[Read Judgment]