The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held multiple government officials guilty of wilful contempt for failing to comply with earlier directions to remove encroachments on temple lands belonging to Arulmigu Balasubramaniyaswamy Temple at Vennaimalai in Karur District. While recording a clear finding of contempt, the Court refrained from imposing punishment and instead issued fresh directions to ensure recovery of the temple property and expeditious adjudication of related suits.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice B. Pugalendhi was hearing a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Court’s 2019 judgment in which authorities were directed to remove encroachments over lands belonging to the temple. The original writ petition had sought action against encroachments over approximately 500 acres of temple land, some of which dated back decades.
The Court noted that the temple, which is more than 1,000 years old, owns extensive lands in Karur District. Revenue authorities had earlier categorised the lands into multiple categories based on their status in revenue records and the nature of pattas issued to individuals. The 2019 order had issued category-wise directions, including removal of encroachments, restoration of pattas, and filing of civil suits where settlement pattas had been granted to individuals.
Despite these directions, the Court observed that nearly six years had elapsed with little progress, prompting the filing of the present contempt petition. Status reports revealed that 507.88 acres of temple land remained under encroachment, while only 93.64 acres had been recovered so far.
During the proceedings, the Court was informed that notices had been issued to several encroachers and eviction proceedings had been initiated. However, authorities cited law and order issues, protests, and lack of coordination between departments as reasons for the delay in enforcement. Reports indicated that attempts to remove encroachments in November 2025 were obstructed by protests involving political leaders and others, leading to registration of multiple FIRs.
The Court also took note of reports showing that 27 government officials, 49 industrialists, and 38 influential persons were among the encroachers, raising concerns about administrative reluctance to implement judicial directions. It further observed that only a few encroachers had pursued legal remedies and that review petitions as well as Special Leave Petitions challenging earlier orders had already been dismissed.
Holding that the directions issued in 2019 were clear and time-bound, the Court concluded that the continued inaction constituted wilful and deliberate disobedience of judicial orders. It emphasised that postponement of enforcement due to anticipated resistance could not serve as a legal justification.
In a strongly worded observation, the Court remarked that the deity, though recognised as a juristic person in law, “has no voting right,” whereas encroachers wield electoral influence. The Court cautioned that constitutional governance cannot yield to electoral considerations and emphasised that the rule of law cannot be made contingent on crowd approval
However, the Bench withheld punishment against the contemnors, observing that the objective of contempt jurisdiction was to secure compliance rather than merely penalise officials. It reasoned that punishing individual officers would not by itself restore the temple lands, which was the larger public interest at stake.
Closing the contempt proceedings for the present, the Court directed civil courts to endeavour to dispose of pending suits relating to the temple lands within six months, ordered the HR&CE Department to file quarterly status reports on recovery and litigation, and instructed the Superintendent of Police to provide adequate protection for eviction proceedings and take strict action against obstruction.
The Court also directed the Registrar of Societies to examine the activities of certain organisations involved in the protests and take action if illegal activities were found.
Appearances:
A. Radhakrishnan appeared as party-in-person. Senior Advocate N.R. Elango appeared for certain State respondents.
Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan, assisted by Special Government Pleader P. Subburaj, appeared for some officials
Senior Advocate A.K. Sriram and other counsel represented various respondents.
