The court upheld that unauthorized constructions cannot be defended by claims of lawful possession, as established due process has been observed in eviction proceedings.

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed against the impugned notice dated 23.01.2026 issued by the Joint Commissioner of HR&CE Department.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the Manager, Arulmigu Bhagavathiammam Temple (hereinafter called as “Temple”) had constructed buildings in the form of shops in the subject premises and leased out the same to the respective petitioners. Now, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department made an attempt to remove the petitioner's shops by stating that the said buildings are unauthorized constructions and in this regard, he had issued notices to the petitioners directing them to vacate the premises and handover the possession to the Temple Authorities within a period of 3 days.

3. Further, they would submit that the properties were constructed by the Temple and leased out to the petitioners and now, the Temple is in the process of making an application for getting regularisation, since the building was constructed without approval. Under these circumstances, without providing any opportunities to the petitioners, the Kanyakumari Municipality had proceeded to demolish the constructions made by the Temple, in which the petitioners are running shops and duly paying the rent.

4. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the Temple would also submit that in this case, there is no need for getting any approval since these constructions were put up few decades ago. After all, these are all leased out properties, for which, the petitioners are duly paying the lease amount.

5. By referring the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in WP(MD)No.17868 of 2014 dated 09.12.2025, he would submit that the said order was passed for removal of unauthorised constructions made by a particular occupant on the ground of encroachment of the Temple property without obtaining any approval. However, taking into cognizance of the said order, the Commissioner, Kanyakumari Municipality had applied the same yard stick for all the shop owners, to whom the constructions were leased out by the Temple, and issued the impugned notice to vacate the premises. Hence, he requests this Court to quash the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner, Kanyakumari Municipality. In support of his contentions, he referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3461 to 2505 of 2019 (S. Kumar vs. The Commissioner and others)

6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Commissioner, Kanyakumari Municipality, had strongly opposed the submissions made by the petitioners and would submit that the constructions were made by the Temple without obtaining any approval and hence, the Hon'ble Divison Bench of this Court, vide the order dated 09.12.2025 in WP(MD).No.17868 of 2014, issued a direction for removal of unauthorised constructions. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.01.2026, the Hon'ble Division Bench had granted time limit for removal of the said unauthorised constructions till 23.01.2026 and the same was extended till tomorrow (30.01.2026). In such case, the Commissioner, Kanyakumari Municipality, is bound to comply the said order, otherwise it would amount to contempt of the Court. Hence, he would suggest that if the petitioners are aggrieved over the said notice, they can very well file an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. Further, he would submit that the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court would apply to all the persons, who are running shops in the unauthorised constructions. In these cases, the petitioners and the Temple had admitted that the buildings at the subject premises were constructed without obtaini