Encroachment upon public land cannot be justified by claims of long-standing use or worship, and statutory provisions must be adhered to.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The petitioner herein claiming himself as the Managing Trustee of a temple by name Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple, Ramanathapuram District, seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the notice under Section 128 of the Tamilnadu Local Bodies Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') dated 27.01.2026 issued by the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and quash the same.

2.The land, in which the petitioner’s temple stands, is on the bund of a water body (Orruni) classified as Orruni Poramboke Road as per the revenue records. The Commissioner of Ramanathapuram Municipality, earlier issued a notice dated 29.11.2025 under section 128 of the Act for removal of encroachment within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The writ petitioner claiming that the temple is in existence even prior to his birth and he had put up the structure in the year 1991 at his expenses and maintaining it, challenged that notice in W.P.(MD)No.35551 of 2025 before this court. On considering the grounds of challenge, this court dismissed the said writ petition on 11.12.2025 with following observation:-

“3.This notice issued after being satisfied that the petitioner has encroached upon the public place. Seven days time was granted for removing the structure. If the petitioner has any reason to continue the possession, he should have made representation to the authorities. From the affidavit, we find that there is no such representation given by the petitioner and the seven days has already lapsed.”

3.It appears that the petitioner thereafter, had issued notice through his Advocate on 11.12.2025 citing the disposal of his writ petition and his right to file an appeal or review against that order. He had requested the authorities to refrain themselves from taking any coercive steps before expiry of the appeal period. On 15.12.2025 he had made a representation to the Thasildar, Ramanathapuram seeking patta for the land under his encroachment, relying G.O.(Ms) No.205, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 26.04.2025.

4.He has also made a representation to the Commissioner, Ramanathapuram, to desist from taking any action of removal, since he has sought for patta and his request is pending consideration. The representation of the petitioner was rejected for not furnishing the documents of title and building permission for the structure. Hence, the Second notice under Section 128 of the Act was issued on 30.12.2025 for removal of the structure put up on the encroached land. A legal notice on behalf of the residents of Rajamalayetu Street had been issued on 23.01.2026 not to take any action pending disposal of the request to grant patta. Under these circumstances, the third and final notice for eviction under Section 128 of the Act has been issued on 27.01.2026. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

5.The petitioner claims that the Temple is in existence from time immemorial and under worship by the public for several decades without any hindrance and disturbance. The petitioner is administering the Temple by conducting daily poojas and festivals. The Temple building is assessed to tax and also provided with electricity service. The impugned notice to remove the Temple alleging that it is an encroachment on the Municipality land, is issued without following the principles of natural justice. The notice suffers arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The representation submitted by the petitioner for grant of patta relying upon G.O.(Ms)No.205, Revenue and Disaster Management D