In a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court for the issuance of directions to the Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai (respondent 1), and the Zonal Officer, Corporation of Greater Chennai (respondent 2), to take necessary action on a complaint dated 13-09-2025, a Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the petitioner would be entitled to issuance of mandamus as prayed for and directed the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders and ensure its implementation.
The petitioner was the owner of a property, which he had purchased on 25-11-2024. He asserted that before purchase, he had physically visited the premises, noticed a raised structure adjacent to the entrance, and was informed that it was only temporary and would be removed. On this assurance, the petitioner proceeded to purchase the property.
Thereafter, the petitioner noticed that a statue of Mother Mary had been installed in the said temporary structure. He pleaded that the said structure obstructed the main entrance to his house and was an inconvenience to pedestrians using the public pathway. It was also asserted that a tall pillar with an amplifier was installed, and that an illegal electrical connection was drawn from the house on the opposite side of the road.
Due to the illegal superstructure and the unauthorised drawing of electricity, the petitioner approached the respondents by way of a representation, which was not acted upon. Hence, the present petition was filed.
An application was submitted to implead a private person (respondent 3) as a party to the proceedings, who asserted that in 1995, he had established a small shrine of Mother Velankanni, guided by his Christian faith, which had been in existence for three decades, becoming a place of faith and hope for a large number of devotees. He further contended that even at the time of purchasing the property, the petitioner was aware of the structure’s existence.
In an affidavit filed by respondent 3, he assured the Court that he would take all measures to remove the illegal structure within three weeks, as he may not be competent to remove the deity single-handedly.
Upon consideration of all the facts, the Court noted that the shrine had been constructed on a public pathway and reiterated that it is not open to any person to construct a religious structure on a public road and to project religious feelings as a ground for resisting the removal of such encroachment. The Court referred to various cases, including Lavkush v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 SCC OnLine All 394, and rejected the respondents’ plea.
The Court perused the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) and noted that the Commissioner had acted in full compliance with Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. It was stated that when the area on which the shrine was constructed was a public road, respondents 1 and 2 should not have permitted the encroachment, and that the contention regarding the idol’s presence for 30 years was no defence.
The Court ordered respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the 128(1)(b) and 128(2) proceedings initiated by them and directed the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) to wait for any response that might be given by respondent 3 to the notice issued under Section 128(1)(b). Further, the Commissioner was directed to pass appropriate orders in terms of the provisions and to ensure its implementation on or before 10-02-2026.
Lastly, the Court stated that if respondent 3 believed that the petitioner had committed acts that invited the wrath of the law, he could initiate the appropriate proceedings.
The matter has been directed to be called for compliance on 11-02-2026.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. B. Kaarvannan
For Respondents – Mr. E.C. Ramesh, Mr. R Udaya Kumar, Mr. S. Baskar.
