Dismissed¶54

Archunan C v. The Chief Engineer (General)

Madras HC5 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple encroachment on highways land; eviction notice dated 14.11.2025 under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 challenged by certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; earlier order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019 confined to due process under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1971; show cause notice dated 25.04.2025; petitioner disclaimed temple administration as Renovation Committee Secretary; due process held followed; encroachers to be evicted after due process; writ petition dismissed, no costs; Theni District; Bodinaickanur Taluk; S.No.1795.

What did the court decide?

The earlier order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019 was only a protection against eviction without due process of law, not a bar to removal once due process is completed. ¶53

Archunan C Vs The Chief Engineer (General) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Na.Ka.No.valaku/2025/A1) passed by the 3rd respondent is invalid and liable to be quashed by writ of certiorarified mandamus. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

The earlier order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019 was only a protection against eviction without due process of law, not a bar to removal once due process is completed.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Admittedly, the temple has been constructed on the highways land.

¶49

Key takeaways

Encroachments, in whatever form, are a hindrance to the public interest, and encroachers must be evicted after following due process of law.ratio¶53
Due process of law has been followed in this case (show cause notice dated 25.04.2025, petitioner's reply disowning administration, rejection by the Divisional Engineer), and therefore the temple has to be removed since it is admittedly on the highways land.ratio¶53
There is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Division Bench: Dr. G. Jayachandran, J., author; K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.) — Writ petition under Article 226 by the Secretary of the Renovation Committee of Arulmigu Sundara Anjaneyar Kovil, Bodi Meenakshipuram, Theni District, seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash an eviction notice dated 14.11.2025 (Na.Ka.No.valaku/2025/A1) issued by the Highways Department (3rd respondent) under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and forbearance from demolishing the temple at S.No.1795, Thirumulapuram - Meenatchipuram road (km 2/2), Bodinaickanur Taluk. HELD: (i) the earlier Division Bench order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019 was only a protection against eviction without due process under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1971, not immunity from removal after due process; (ii) a show cause notice was issued on 25.04.2025, the petitioner replied disowning any role in administering the temple, and his request was rejected by the Divisional Engineer; (iii) encroachments, in whatever form, hinder the public interest and encroachers must be evicted after following due process of law; (iv) the temple admittedly stands on highways land, due process has been followed, and it must be removed. Petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD) No.27758 of 2025) closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶7

and W.M.P.(MD) No.27758 of 2025

¶8

C.Archunan The Secretary Arul Mighu Sundara Anjaneyar Kovil Thiruppanikkulu Bodi Meenakshipuram Theni - District

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The Chief Engineer (General) State Highways Authority Highways Department Tamil Nadu Government Chennai

¶12

2.The Divisional Engineer State Highways Department (Construction and Maintenance) Theni District, Theni

¶13

Page 1 of 9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶16

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer Highways Department Theni District, Theni

¶17

4.The Tahsildar Bodinaickanoor Taluk Bodinaickanoor Theni – District

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by this 3^rd respondent, vide Na.Ka.No.valaku/2025/A1 dated 14.11.2025 and quash the same as not valid and consequently forbearing these respondents from demolishing and removing “Arulmighu Sundara Anjeaneyar Temple” situated in Thirumulapuram - Meenatchipuram road km 2/2 in the right side in S.No.1795, situated in Bodi Meenatchipuram in Bodinaickanur Taluk in Theni District.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶21

Page 2 of 9

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶25

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶26

Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader, takes

¶27

notice for the respondents

¶28

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

¶29

3. The petitioner herein claiming as Secretary of the Renovation

¶30

Committee of Arulmigu Sundara Anjaneyar Kovil, Bodi Meenakshipuram, Theni District, has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned eviction notice, dated 14.11.2025, issued by the Highways Department.

¶31

4. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of the Renovation Committee, which has renovated the temple situated at the road margin. The Highways Department had not considered the fact that the temple is in existence for a long number of years and being worshipped by the local people without any hindrance to the free flow of traffic in the highways Infact, the temple is far away from the proposed expansion of the highways.

¶32

Page 3 of 9

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶35

However, when they attempted to remove the temple without proper notice, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 27006 of 2019 seeking a mandamus to the respondents. This Court, by an order dated 11.12.2024, considered the prayer of the petitioner and directed the respondents not to remove the temple without following due process provided under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1971. Whileso, the present impugned proceedings has been issued under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 per se contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Further, instead of causing notice to the management of the temple, the impugned notice has been caused to the Secretary of the Renovation Committee, which is responsible only for the renovation works of the temple and not for day-to-day administration of the temple.

¶36

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the disputed structure is lying on the Government land near the State Highways land. Earlier, when the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment, he approached this Court seeking mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any action without giving prior notice as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The

¶37

Page 4 of 9

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶40

Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition recording the apprehension of the petitioner that the official respondents may resort to remove the construction without following due process as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1971.

¶41

6. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.12.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in said W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019, is extracted hereunder:

¶42

“3. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that the official respondents herein would resort to removing the construction, without following the due procedure contemplated under the Land Encroachment Act, 1971.

¶43

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that in case there is any encroachment in the subject lands, the same shall be removed, after following the due procedures provided under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1971. In the light of such a submission, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. ”

¶44

_____________ Page 5 of 9_

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶47

7. In the above circumstances, the impugned notice has been issued by the Highways Department, on 14.11.2025, requesting the petitioner to remove the encroachment within a period of seven days, failing which action for removal of the encroachment will be taken by them.

¶48

8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would further submit that with due reverence to the Court's order, as per per law, a show notice was issued, on 25.04.2025, to the petitioner, who in fact, replied to the show cause notice that he has no role in administering the temple and he is only the Secretary of the Renovation Committee of the temple and he requested the Department to remain in the subject land. However, the said request was rejected by the Divisional Engineer. Having followed the due process of law, the encroacher cannot seek remedy to continue his encroachment in the land owned by the Highways Department.

¶49

9. This Court, on perusing the records, finds that, admittedly, the temple has been constructed on the highways land. The order passed by this Court in the W.P.(MD) No.27006 of 2019, dated 11.12.2024, is only a

¶50

Page 6 of 9

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.35068 of 2025

¶53

protection to the petitioner herein from being evicted from the subject land without following due process of law. From the records, we also find that the show cause notice was issued on 25.04.2025. The petitioner herein has made a representation to the Divisional Engineer disowning his responsibility. Now, again, he has come to this Court saying that he is interested in the temple and the temple should not be removed from the highways land. Encroachments, in whatever form, are hindrance to the public interest and the encroachers need to be evicted after following due process of law. In this case, we find that due process of law has been followed and the temple of the petitioner has to be removed, since admittedly it is on the highways land. Therefore, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶54