‘Devotee Fights Alone’: Madras High Court Pulls Up Officials for Failing to Clear Encroachments on Temple Lands

The contempt petition was filed by A. Radhakrishnan, a devotee who had earlier approached the court in 2018 seeking the recovery of temple property. Though the court had, in October 2019, ordered the HR & CE Department to take immediate steps to clear encroachments, the directions remained largely unimplemented even after six years. With nearly 507.88 acres of temple land still under illegal occupation, Radhakrishnan initiated contempt proceedings against top officials.

Court took cognizance of the contempt in March 2024, observing that the HR & CE Department, despite being the statutory guardian of temple assets, had failed to protect the land. The department’s report admitted that its eviction drives in 2022 failed due to protests by encroachers and “lack of cooperation” from the police and other authorities.

To facilitate compliance, the court had allowed the HR & CE Department to form a monitoring committee with revenue officials. However, subsequent hearings revealed that “no meaningful progress” had been made. On October 3, 2024, the bench suo motu impleaded several serving and retired HR & CE officers, directing them to explain their inaction.

During hearings, the officers claimed they faced “threats and intimidation” from encroachers and were unable to carry out eviction due to the non-cooperation of the district administration and police. The bench noted that such a situation “shows the lawlessness in the State” and directed the Superintendent of Police, Karur, to provide full protection to the temple’s Executive Officer and the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE, Tiruppur.

“The court will not permit the hanging of Damocles’ sword over officers who are discharging their duties,” the court had then remarked, warning that any danger caused to officials during enforcement would make the Superintendent of Police personally liable.

A subsequent report filed by the department revealed a startling picture: 27 government officials, 49 industrialists and businessmen, and 38 influential persons were among the encroachers. Yet, their names, positions, and details of occupation were not disclosed to the court. The bench criticized the HR & CE Commissioner for not escalating the issue to the Revenue and Home Departments despite repeated warnings.

The bench noted that documents essential for reclaiming temple lands were readily available with the district administration or archives but had not been obtained. The HR & CE Department, the statutory guardian of temple properties, has failed to discharge its duties, leaving it to a devotee to pursue the matter before this Court the judges observed.

For effective adjudication and to fix accountability, court suo motu impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Karur, as a party respondent to these proceedings.

The bench directed respondents, including senior IAS officers and the Superintendent of Police, to personally appear before it on October 17, 2025, with complete revenue records.