3000 religious buildings squat on public lands, govt tells High Court

Taking a stern view over the encroachment by persons in the name of religion, the court had earlier observed that a religious deity was a legal person and hence cannot encroach land. 

During the last hearing of the case on January 4, the court had directed authorities to submit a detailed report on such encroachments. Complying with the order, S Ramanathan, deputy secretary of State Municipal Administration Department filed the report on Friday, stating that there were 3,168 religious structures that encroached public land, which includes 3,003 temples, 131 churches, 27 mosques and 7 that belong to other religions. 

The matter pertains to a plea moved by K Ramakrishnan, general secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam in 2004, seeking to implement a Government Order dated April 29, 1968, and remove a Vinayagar temple constructed on a public land in Coimbatore. When the plea came up before him for hearing, Justice SM Subramaniam had sought details of such encroachments across the State. He observed that the rule of law could not be diluted merely because the offence was by a deity. 

“An encroachment is an encroachment. Encroachment can never be approved or allowed. Even temple deity, as a legal person, cannot commit an act of encroachment. If a deity in a temple commits an act of encroachment, that is also to be dealt with in accordance with law,” Justice Subramaniam had held in his order.

However, when the plea came up for hearing on Friday, Justice Subramaniam pointed out that the roster of the court has changed. Now, he was no longer in charge of the portfolio to hear the case, the judge said, adding that he would refer the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before the appropriate judge.

The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the retirement of Pon Manickavel, then an IG, when a CB-CID inquiry against him was still pending. Coming down heavily on the petitioner for moving such a frivolous plea in the guise of a PIL, a division bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium noted that he was fortunate not to be imposed cost. 

The petitioner had contended that the government had ordered a CB-CID probe into the way the officer, then heading the Idol Wing CID, had recovered antique idols from Gujarat. But despite pending inquiry, he was permitted to retire from service with all benefits on November 30. The petitioner alleged that the government’s act would set a bad precedent, and encourage dishonest and corrupt officials. He sought the court to direct the government to consider his representation dated December 16, 2018, and revoke Manickavel’s retirement.