Temple trustees challenged an encroachment removal order. The court noted the temple stood on land not owned by the trustees and declined to interfere, but granted six months' non-enforcement subject to an undertaking that the trustees would relocate the temple themselves.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.25018 of 2025
A.Rajendran
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 265/2024 dated 31.10.2025 consequently directing the first respondent to
1/4
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025
dispose of the petition filed under Section 10 B of Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.Pursuant to the direction given by us vide order dated 04.03.2025 in W.P(MD)No.13074 of 2024, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner is one of the trustees of the petition mentioned temple. Admittedly, the temple has not been put up on any patta land.
3.According to the respondents, the temple is in a water body. The petitioner states that the water body is more than 500 meters away from the temple site. But the fact remains that the temple has not been put up on a land owned by the trustees.
4.In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere. Subject to
the petitioner filing an undertaking affidavit within a period of two weeks
2/4
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025
stating that the temple will be relocated by the trustees themselves, we direct
the respondents not to enforce the impugned order for a period of exactly 6 months from today.
5.With the aforesaid breathing time to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 06.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA
To
1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
3/4
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and B.PUGALENDHI, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.31827 of 2025
06.11.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the encroachment removal order against a temple built on non-patta land should be interfered with.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.Rajendran
The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai
The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District
The Executive Officer, Vadipatti Town Panchayat, Madurai District
G.R.Swaminathan
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
