Long-term existence of a structure on government land classified as a public pathway (Paathai Poramboke) does not confer a legal right of occupation, although humanitarian time may be granted for the relocation of a family deity.

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 19.08.2026 in Na.Ka.No.120/2026/ThaA issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 5 to keep the petitioners temple namely Arulmighu Sri Sonaiswamy, Sri Karuppanaswamy, Sri Veerakaliyamman, Sri Seelakariamman Temple in S.No.653/1, Oruthattu Village, Ammayanayakanur Panchayath Union, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District till the outcome of the civil suit in I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.120/2026/ThaA, dated 19.08.2026 and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to keep the petitioners temple namely Arulmighu Sri Sonaiswamy, Sri Karuppanaswamy, Sri Veerakaliyamman, Sri Seelakariamman Temple in S.No.653/1, Oruthattu Village, Ammayanayakanur Panchayath Union, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District till the outcome of the civil suit in I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Since no adverse order is going to be passed, notice to the sixth respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has a family deity temple, namely, Arulmighu Sri Sonai Swamy Temple, situated in Survey No.653/1 and other adjoining survey numbers. It is submitted that the said temple is situated adjacent to the cart track and has been in existence for more than 100 years, even prior to Independence. The members of the petitioner's family and the people residing in the locality have been worshipping the said deity and enjoying the temple for several decades.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No.10938 of 2022, seeking removal of the alleged encroachment. This Court, by order dated 08.06.2022, directed the respondents to measure and survey the property in the presence of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. Subsequently, an eviction notice was issued to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.19586 of 2022. This Court, by order dated 24.08.2022, directed the official respondents to survey and measure the property in the presence of the petitioner and treat the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 as a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and permit the petitioner to submit his objections. Thereafter, the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law. Subsequently, an order was passed directing eviction. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.24509 of 2022. This Court, by order dated 27.10.2022, directed the respondents therein to survey and measure the property in the presence of the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the property was surveyed and inspected and thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has been maintaining and worshipping the said temple and that the temple is not situated on the main public pathway, but is situated in a paddy field. It is submitted that the said pathway is not being used by the general public and is being used only by a few persons having agricultural lands in and around the area. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned eviction order may be