In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has declared that the law of adverse possession or limitation cannot be invoked against temple lands, setting a precedent in a case involving encroachment on the Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple land.
The case unfolded when the temple filed a petition before the High Court seeking restoration of land ownership rights after it was wrongly classified as “Sarkar Poramboke land” in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR). The temple argued that it had been in possession of the land since 1775 AD, presenting historical records to substantiate its claim.
Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the single bench, observed that documents dating back to 1862 clearly established the temple’s ownership of the disputed land. Despite attempts by respondents to dispute the temple’s claim, the court upheld the temple’s rights, emphasizing that the law of adverse possession cannot be applied against temple properties.
The court’s verdict, delivered on February 9, underscored the sanctity of temple lands and the importance of protecting them from encroachment. It stated that any attempt to alienate or create encumbrance on temple lands without due process of law would be deemed unlawful. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that temple lands are held in trust for the deity and cannot be subject to adverse possession.
The case also involved a dispute with the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), which planned a corridor alignment through the disputed land. The temple opposed the project, arguing that the land was wrongly considered government property by the CMRL. However, the CMRL asserted that the land had been acquired for the metro rail project and would not disrupt the temple’s operations.
In response to the temple’s petition, the court directed government officials to consider the representations made by the temple and take appropriate action. The ruling emphasized the need to respect the religious and cultural significance of temple lands and ensure their protection against unauthorized occupation.
The verdict has been hailed as a victory for temple authorities and religious institutions across the country, who have long sought legal recourse to safeguard their properties from encroachment and exploitation. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of religious institutions and preserving their heritage for future generations.
As the case sets a precedent for future disputes involving temple lands, stakeholders have welcomed the clarity provided by the court’s ruling. It reinforces the principle that temple lands are sacrosanct and must be preserved for their intended purpose, free from encroachment or unauthorised occupation.
Comments