Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Jesudass cornelius – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
WP No. 1200 of 2022|WMP NO. 1269 of 2022|WMP NO. 6288 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.M.Sneha
For the Respondents: Mr.T.K.Saravanan, Mr.P.Srinivas, Mr.B.Manoharan, Mr.Siva Shanmugam, Mr.K.Karthikeyan
A religious structure existing for several decades on land earmarked for a park, supported by the local community and occupying a minimal portion of the land, can be considered part of the park's utility for mental well-being rather than an illegal encroachment.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to maintain land earmarked for a park and playground in an approved layout. The petitioner alleged that a temple had been constructed on the earmarked land, which constituted an encroachment and hindered the maintenance of the park. The primary issue was whether a temple existing on land earmarked for a park for over five decades constitutes an encroachment. The court reasoned that since the temple occupies only a small portion of the total area (2260 sq.ft. out of 9000 sq.ft.) and serves the mental well-being and faith of the majority of residents, it should be treated as part and parcel of the park rather than an encroachment. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for maintenance of earmarked park land and removal of alleged encroachment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense based on long-term existence of the structure and willingness to maintain remaining area. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. impact of exorbitant delay (laches) in challenging a long-standing structure. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. integration of religious structures into public parks for community mental well-being. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. determination that a structure serving public purpose and occupying minimal space is not an encroachment. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. dismissal of motivated petitions with exemplary costs. (Para 15 , 16) |
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 2 to maintain land ear marked for park and play ground in approved the layout in No L.P.G.T.S.D.T.P. No.78/60, in S.Nos. 75/2 to 5, Veeraraghavan Village, Thiruverkadu, Tiruvallur District as park and play ground.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.M.Sneha
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP for R1, 5 & 7
Mr.P.Srinivas, for R2
Mr.B.Manoharan, for R3
Mr.Siva Shanmugam for R6
Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to maintain land ear marked for park and play ground in approved layout in No L.P.G.T.S.D.T.P. No.78/60, in S.Nos. 75/2 to 5, Veeraraghavan Village, Thiruverkadu, Tiruvallur District as park and play ground.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, on 20.04.1960, the layout of the subject land was approved by the Director of Town Planning. In the approved layout, specific areas were earmarked as “park” and “playground”. However, the Authorities concerned are not maintaining the said park and playground.
3. Further, she would submit that a Temple is situated in the subject land, however, the same was not marked vide the aforesaid approved layout. According to the petitioner, the said temple is situated in the area, which was earmarked as “park” and “playground” in the approved layout. Hence, this writ petition.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if all the relevant documents, viz., layout of subject land, approval granted by Director of Town Planning, etc., are produced before the respondents, they will consider the petitioner's request as early as possible.
5. As far as the submission made with regard to the Temple is concerned, he would submit that the said Hindu Temple is situated at the subject land for more than 5 decades and he had also pointed out that out of the total area of 9000 sq.ft, the Temple is situated within an extent of 3000 sq.ft. Thus, the park and playground can be very well maintained at remaining 6000 sq.ft. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, the layout of subject land was approved by the Director, Town Planning, on 20.04.1960. In the approved layout, specific areas were earmarked as “park” and “playground”. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not maintaining the said park and playground properly.
8. Yet another submission was made by the petitioner with regard to the alleged encroachment said to have been made by constructing a Hindu Temple, which is situated at the subject land. However, according to the respondent, the said temple is existing in the subject land for more than 5 decades.
9. When the Temple is in existence for more than 5 decades, the petitioner is supposed to have made his objections at the earlier stage. However, after an exorbitant delay, all of a sudden, now, he is coming forward with an allegation of encroachment against the Temple.
10. After all, the park and playground were earmarked in the approved layout for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents in and around the subject layout. When the
