Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Decades-Old Temple on Park Land, Terms Filing Malafide

Overview of the Judgment

The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Jesudass Cornelius v. The District Collector & Ors. in WP No. 1200 of 2022 and WMP No. 1269 of 2022 & 6288 of 2025, pronounced on 04-03-2026 and uploaded on 07-04-2026. A Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy dismissed a writ petition that sought directions to authorities to preserve land designated as a park and playground in an approved layout, and to remove a temple that had been standing on a portion of that land for over five decades.

The Court not only rejected the relief sought but also took a strong view of the manner in which the petition was filed, imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner, payable to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, on account of the filing being found to be motivated and malafide in nature.

Background and Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Jesudass Cornelius, a resident of Tiruverkadu in Chennai, approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ of mandamus. The relief sought was directed at the District Collector and the concerned municipal authorities, with the prayer that land situated in an approved layout bearing reference No. L.P.G.T.S.D.T.P. No. 78/60, in S.Nos. 75/2 to 5, Veeraraghavan Village, Thiruverkadu, Tiruvallur District, be maintained strictly as a park and playground in accordance with the original approved layout.

Key Factual Background

  • The layout of the subject land was approved by the Director of Town Planning on 20.04.1960, wherein specific portions were earmarked for use as a "park" and "playground."
  • The petitioner alleged that the authorities had failed in their duty to maintain the said space and had allegedly permitted what he characterized as an encroachment in the form of a Hindu temple constructed on a part of the earmarked land.
  • The petitioner's counsel submitted that the temple was not reflected in the approved layout and therefore constituted an unauthorized structure on land that was reserved for public recreational use.

Respondents' Stand

The respondents' counsel countered the petitioner's contentions with the following submissions: