Madras High Court Judgment: Jesudass Cornelius v. The District Collector & Ors.
It stands to reason that while taking the right stand, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jesudass Cornelius v. The District Collector & Ors. in WP No. 1200 of 2022 and WMP No. 1269 of 2022 & 6288 of 2025 that was pronounced on 04-03-2026 and then finally uploaded on 07/04/2026 has dismissed a writ petition that sought to direct authorities to maintain land earmarked as a park and playground only and to remove temple.
It was held by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy who authored this notable judgment that a temple existing within the land for over five decades “has to be considered as a part and parcel of the park.” It sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector and municipal authorities to maintain land in an approved layout at Veeraraghavapuram, Thiruverkadu as a park and playground.
Petitioner’s Claims and Background
We need to note that the petitioner named Jusudass Cornelius from Tiruverkadu in Chennai submitted that the layout of the land was approved by the Director of Town Planning on April 20, 1960 and specific areas were earmarked as park and playground, and that the authorities were not maintaining it and permitted encroachment as temple.
- Layout approved on April 20, 1960
- Land earmarked as park and playground
- Allegation of encroachment due to temple presence
Court Observations on Temple
Notably, the Bench held that the temple had existed for more than 50 years old and could not be called as an encroachment. It was also pointed out by the Bench that, “While parks are essential for enjoyment, recreation and relaxation, a temple promotes mental well-being and thus, could be treated as part of the park. The belief and faith of the general public cannot be disturbed merely on the grounds of alleged encroachment.”
Final Decision and Costs
While finding that the petition was filed with a malafide intention to cause a communal riot, the Bench dismissed it with costs and directed the petitioner to pay Rs 1 lakh to the TN Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks failing which recovery proceedings were ordered.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Outcome | Writ Petition Dismissed |
| Temple Status | Considered Part of Park |
| Costs Imposed | Rs 1 Lakh |
| Authority | TN Legal Services Authority |
Court Analysis and Key Paragraphs
Para 1: Relief Sought
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “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.”
Para 2: Layout Approval and Maintenance Issue
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “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.”
Para 3: Temple Location Dispute
As we see, the Bench then further states in para 3 that, “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.”
Para 4: Respondent’s Arguments
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “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.”
Para 5: Temple Area and Remaining Land
Further, the Bench observes in para 5 that, “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.”
- Total Land Area: 9000 sq.ft
- Temple Area: 3000 sq.ft
- Remaining Park Area: 6000 sq.ft
Para 6: Hearing and Review
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 6 that, “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.”
Case Background Overview
As things stands, the Bench points out in para 7 that, “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.”
Delay and Objection Issue
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “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.”
Duty to Maintain Public Spaces
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that, “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 said layout is handed over to the respondent, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to maintain the same. When such being the case, if there is any interference at this stage, the same will disturb the belief and faith of larger number of people resides therein.”
Importance of Parks and Temples
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Parks are essential public places designed for enjoyment, recreation and relaxation. They also provide area for exercise, walking and social gatherings. It promotes physical and mental well-being. It protects the bio-diversity by way of providing improved air and water bodies. Parks are also serving as a vital community hubs and provides safe natural set-up for all people. On the other hand, the construction of Temple and worshipping of Deity is also a way for relaxation, which promotes the mental well-being of majority of residents of the subject layout. Therefore, at any cost, the Temple has to be considered as a part and parcel of the Park and as a place for relaxation, which reduce mental stress of the people.”
Extent and Impact of Temple
Most rationally, the Bench then propounds in para 12 holding that, “As the Temple is situated only to the extent of 2260 sq.ft., out of the total vacant area of 9000 sq.ft., it will no way affect the movement of public in the said park. That apart, as stated above, at any cost, the belief and faith of the general public, those who worship the Deity, cannot be disturbed merely on the ground of alleged encroachment. Further, in this case, with the wishes of majority of residents of the subject layout, the Temple is constructed in a portion of an area, which was earmarked as “park” and the residents therein are worshipping the Deity in that Temple for more than 5 decades. Thus, it would be considered as a place for mental well-being of the majority of people living therein and the same shall be treated as part and parcel of the park.”
Public Purpose and No Encroachment
As a corollary, the Bench then expounds in para 13 holding that, “In view of the above, it is clear that the majority people of the subject layout had constructed the temple and worshipping the Deity therein for more than 5 decades and thus, there is no doubt that the said Hindu Temple is constructed in the Park for the public purpose. It is not an encroachment, but it is wishes of majority residents of the subject layout. Further, the said Temple is not constructed in any area which are earmarked for lake, river, etc., so as to obstruct the public means.”
Space Utilization and Maintenance
| Component | Area (sq.ft.) |
|---|---|
| Total Park Area | 9000 |
| Temple Area | 2260 |
| Remaining Park Area | 6740 |
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 14 noting that, “As rightly pointed out by the respondents, out of the total area (9000 sq.ft), the Temple is situated only within an extent of 2260 sq.ft. Thus, the park can be very well maintained at the remaining portion of 6740 sq.ft., for the other activities. As the Temple is in existence for more than 5 decades, it will not be an impediment for maintaining park in the subject land. The said Temple is nothing but part and parcel of the park.”
Court Observation on Malafide Intent
Most forthrightly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 15 that, “As stated above, this petition, which has been filed with malafide intention to create communal riots, appears to be motivated one. Therefore, considering the said aspect, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition with huge cost.”
Final Order and Directions
- Petition dismissed
- Penalty imposed: Rs.1,00,000/-
- Payment to: Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai
- Time limit: 4 weeks
- Failure consequence: Revenue recovery proceedings
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 16 that, “Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the 1st respondent-District Collector is directed to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner and pay the amount as stated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.”
Conclusion Summary
In conclusion, we see that the Madras High Court has refused to order the demolition of a 50-year-old temple constructed on a land earmarked for park. It was also pointed out by Court that it is not an encroachment but a collective wish of the majority of the local residents. We further see that the Court thus deemed it fit to impose costs of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner named Jesudass Cornelius of Veeraragavapuram in Tiruvallur district in Tamil Nadu for filing the petition with “malafide intention” after such a long delay.
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
