Introduction:

In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional principle that public spaces must remain free from private occupation regardless of religious sentiment, the Madras High Court, through Justice V. Lakshminarayana, held that any encroachment on public roads or lands vested in local bodies must be removed, even if such encroachment takes the form of a religious shrine, and that it is the statutory duty of the Municipal Commissioner to act after issuing due notice, the Court made it unequivocally clear that a road or street has no religious character and that the nature of the structure erected upon it cannot confer legality upon what is otherwise an unlawful occupation of public land, this observation came while deciding a writ petition filed by A. Sarath, who sought directions to the Greater Chennai Corporation to remove a shrine of Mother Velankanni erected on the public road immediately in front of his house, Sarath had purchased the property in 2024 and claimed that upon commencing repair works, he noticed that the shrine had been constructed right at the entrance of his property, obstructing free access and posing inconvenience to pedestrians using the public pathway, he further alleged that electricity was being illegally drawn to the shrine from a nearby house, the case, however, took a sensitive turn when a private individual, who claimed to have installed the shrine in 1995, got himself impleaded and argued that the shrine had, over decades, become a symbol of faith, emotional support, and community bonding for residents of the locality, and that its removal would hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony, the Court was thus called upon to balance competing claims of public law, religious freedom, and civic responsibility, and in doing so, it placed strong reliance on constitutional principles, statutory mandates under local body laws, and precedents of the Supreme Court which have consistently held that public streets and roads cannot be converted into religious spaces, no matter how long the encroachment has existed or how many devotees frequent it, thereby reaffirming that legality cannot be overridden by emotion and that governance must remain rooted in rule of law rather than tolerance of unlawful practices.

Arguments:

Arguments: On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. B. Kaarvannan submitted that the shrine had been erected on what is classified in revenue records as sarkar poramboke street, meaning land belonging to the Government and meant for public use as a roadway, it was argued that the shrine directly obstructed the entrance to the petitioner’s house, interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and also created inconvenience to pedestrians and vehicles, thereby affecting not only the petitioner but the general public, it was further contended that the Municipal authorities had a statutory obligation under Section 128 of the Local Bodies Act to remove encroachments from public places and that failure to act on the petitioner’s repeated representations amounted to abdication of statutory duty, the petitioner also brought to the notice of the Court that electricity was allegedly being drawn illegally to the shrine, which compounded the illegality and posed safety risks, on the other hand, the private individual who had installed the shrine argued that it had existed since 1995 without any objection from residents, that it had become a spiritual refuge for many devotees, and that its removal would deeply wound religious feelings and disrupt communal peace, he further alleged that the petitioner’s challenge was selective and motivated, claiming that the petitioner had no objection to other religious structures such as Vinayaka shrines in the locality, thereby implying discriminatory intent, he also raised counter-allegations against the petitioner, asserting that the petitioner was misusing his property by running an illegal food court, operating an unlawful bar, and selling crackers and country bombs during death processions, suggesting that the petitioner lacked clean hands and was not entitled to equitable relief, the Corporation authorities, represented by Mr. E. C. Ramesh and Mr. R. Udaya Kumar, did not dispute that the structure stood on public land and submitted that notices had already been issued in accordance with law and that they were prepared to proceed with removal, the dispute therefore centered not on factual ownership of the land but on whether religious sentiment, passage of time, or community acceptance could justify the continued existence of an illegal structure on a public road, and whether the Court should intervene in matters touching religious sensitivity when statutory violations are evident, the private respondent repeatedly urged the Court to consider the social and emotional dimensions of the shrine, arguing that law should not be applied in a manner that disregards community faith, while the petitioner maintained that tolerance of illegal occupation in the name of religion sets a dangerous precedent that ultimately erodes public rights and civic order.

Court’s Judgment:

Court’s Judgment: After carefully examining the pleadings, revenue records, statutory provisions, and constitutional principles, the Madras High Court categorically held that religious character cannot sanctify an encroachment on public land, the Court observed that roads and streets are meant exclusively for public passage and utility and cannot acquire religious identity merely because a shrine or idol is placed upon them, Justice V. Lakshminarayana emphasized that irrespective of whether the superstructure is religious or irreligious, once it is found to be an encroachment on a public street or land vested with a local body, the Municipal Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to remove it after issuing due notice, the Court placed reliance on Supreme Court precedents which have consistently ruled that no individual or group has the right to construct religious structures on public roads and that religious sentiments cannot be used as a shield to protect illegal occupation of public spaces, the Court found from official records that the land in question was indeed classified as sarkar poramboke street and that the shrine occupied approximately 8 square meters of public road, the Court further noted that the Regional Deputy Commissioner had already initiated proceedings by issuing notice, thereby acting in compliance with statutory requirements, and therefore there was no legal impediment to removal of the structure, addressing the argument of religious sentiments and communal harmony, the Court held that constitutional secularism requires the State to treat all religions equally but does not permit encroachments in the name of any religion, and that true communal harmony is best preserved by ensuring equal application of law rather than selective tolerance of illegality, the Court rejected the contention that long-standing existence of the shrine could create any vested right, observing that illegality does not become legal by efflux of time, with regard to allegations against the petitioner about illegal use of his property, the Court clarified that such grievances could be pursued separately before appropriate authorities and could not be used as a justification to continue an independent illegality on public land, the Court thus allowed the writ petition and directed the Corporation authorities to proceed with removal of the encroachment in accordance with law, reaffirming that statutory duty cannot be compromised due to emotional or religious considerations, and concluding that public rights over roads and streets must prevail over private religious claims, thereby restoring the primacy of rule of law in the governance of urban spaces.