The Madras High Court delivered a judgment emphasizing that an encroachment on a public street or land vested with a local body cannot be permitted merely because the structure placed upon it has a religious character. The Court’s clear position was that a road or street does not acquire any religious character by virtue of a superstructure being erected on it, and that unauthorized occupation of public land must be removed in accordance with statutory provisions irrespective of the nature or use of the structure. The matter before the Court arose from a petition filed by an individual named Sarath, who challenged the inaction of municipal authorities in addressing a shrine that had been constructed on a public road adjacent to his property, causing obstruction to his house entrance and inconvenience to pedestrians.
In his petition, the resident explained that he purchased his residential property and, while carrying out repair work, noticed that a structure had been erected beside the entrance to his home. This structure, which had a religious shrine dedicated to Mother Velankanni, was positioned on a public pathway classified as “Sarkar Poramboke” land, meaning it was part of a public road. The petitioner highlighted that the shrine not only obstructed access to his property but also impeded the movement of pedestrians using the public pathway, and that electricity was being drawn without authorization from nearby premises to power elements associated with the shrine. Despite filing complaints with the Greater Chennai Corporation, no effective action was taken by the civic authorities to address or remove the encroachment, prompting him to approach the High Court seeking a direction to enforce his complaint.
During the proceedings, a private individual was added as a respondent and contended that he had originally installed the shrine in 1995. He stated that over the years it had become a place of devotion and emotional support for many devotees in the locality. He argued that there had never been complaints against the shrine until the petitioner’s filing of the writ petition and that its removal would affect the religious sentiments of the local people and disturb communal harmony. The individual also alleged that the petitioner’s case was arbitrary and motivated, and made counter-accusations about the petitioner's own use of his property for alleged illegal commercial purposes. Despite these assertions, the Court’s focus remained on the legal character of the land and the propriety of allowing a structure to remain on public property.
In examining the records and evidence, the High Court noted that the disputed structure was indeed situated on land officially classified as a public street or thoroughfare. The Court rejected the contention that the shrine’s religious nature could justify its continued presence on public land, noting that a road or street retains its secular and public character regardless of any superstructures placed thereon. The bench reiterated that statutory duties imposed on municipal authorities require the removal of encroachments on public land after due notice has been issued to the encroacher, and that religious sentiment cannot override these duties or the rights of the public to unobstructed use of public spaces. The Court referred to the statutory framework under the relevant urban local bodies legislation, which imposes a responsibility on the Municipal Commissioner to remove any unauthorized encroachments.
Rejecting the argument that the long-standing existence of the shrine conferred any legal right to maintain it, the Court made it clear that the mere passage of time cannot transform an illegal occupation of public land into a lawful one. The High Court observed that constitutional protections for freedom of religion do not extend to a right to erect or maintain religious structures on public land without proper legal authority, and that allowing such encroachments to persist on the basis of faith or sentiment would undermine the rule of law and the rights of other citizens to use the public thoroughfare. It further clarified that issues raised in relation to the alleged improper use of electricity or other regulatory violations were separate matters that could be pursued through appropriate legal proceedings but did not justify the continuance of the encroaching structure on public land.
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief and directed the municipal authorities to proceed with the proceedings already initiated to remove the encroachment, in compliance with the statutory requirements. The bench emphasized that public roads and streets must remain accessible for public use, free from obstructions regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious in nature, and that statutory obligations must be fulfilled by the concerned authorities to ensure that illegal encroachments are addressed. This judgment reaffirmed the principle that the character of public land is not altered by the presence of a structure and that the rule of law must be maintained in upholding the rights of the public and enforcing statutory duties, without permitting unauthorized occupation based on religious sentiment.
The case titled A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others thus highlighted the legal position that encroachments on public streets cannot be sanctioned simply because they serve or represent a religious purpose, and that municipal authorities must act in accordance with the law to remove such encroachments following due process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.