Read Time: 08 minutes
Court held that demolishing a recently constructed building, or parts of it, built at a cost of Rs. 250 crores by a public sector entity, would be entirely against the public interest
The Madras High Court has quashed the Chennai Metro Rail Limited’s (CMRL) move to acquire a portion of land belonging to United India Insurance Company for a metro station, citing violations of promissory estoppel and natural justice.
Court observed that the decision to alter the station’s location, which was originally planned within the premises of Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple, Whites Road, Chennai, was taken without consulting the insurance company.
CMRL issued a notice to United India Insurance Company on September 26, 2024, proposing to acquire 837 sq. meters of its land for construction of the Thousand Lights Metro Station. The shift in location was due to a prior Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aalayam Kaapom Foundation, advocating against the acquisition of temple land. The first bench of the High Court had recorded CMRL’s undertaking to shift the entry/exit point of the station to the opposite side, within the insurance company’s premises. However, the company was neither a party to the PIL nor given an opportunity to be heard.
The company constructed a new head office featuring a first-of-its-kind structural steel diagrid design. The 14-story building includes ample parking space and covers a total built-up area of approximately 25,000 square meters, including the 837 square meters sought by the CMRL.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, delivering the verdict, ruled that the land acquisition notice was a mere formality to justify a premeditated decision, amounting to a "post-decisional hearing." The bench held that the petitioner’s legitimate expectations were violated, as CMRL had previously granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for constructing its head office. The company, relying on this assurance, invested over Rs 250 crore in constructing an architecturally significant building.
Court emphasized that the principle of promissory estoppel binds government agencies to their commitments, preventing them from arbitrarily rescinding assurances given to private entities. It also rejected the contention that temple lands should be automatically exempt from acquisition, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj Vs. State of Gujarat (1975) affirming the state’s power of eminent domain over religious properties.
Further, court noted procedural irregularities, including a joint site inspection by the first bench without notice to the petitioner, describing it as a violation of natural justice and “abuse of power” under Article 14 of The Constitution of India.
It also dismissed claims that temple sentiments should override public interest, underscoring that infrastructure projects serve a broader societal purpose.
"...the Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness and benevolence for the development of a metro rail station, which will benefit lakhs of people from all segments of society, some of whom may well be devotees, who visit the temple. In the words of the Kerala High Court, 'God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us'," Justice Venkatesh observed.
Court also stressed that it would be completely contrary to public interest to tear down a building/or portions thereof of a recently constructed structure put up at a cost of Rs.200 crores by a public sector entity, after obtaining all clearances and the NOC from the CMRL and that too on the basis of a proceeding held completely behind its back.
Accordingly, quashing the impugned notice, the high court directed CMRL to revert to its original plan of constructing the station within the temple premises of Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple, Whites Road, Chennai, provided legal requirements are met. It refrained from imposing costs but expressed hope that the authorities would take away a broader lesson on fairness and transparency in public decision-making.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Please Login or Register
