Wondering why a metro rail station should not be constructed on a temple land in Chennai, the Madras High Court said, “The Almighty would undoubtedly shower his kindness and benevolence for the development of a metro rail station that will benefit lakhs of people from all the segments of society — some of whom may well be devotees who visit the same temple.”
Allowing a writ petition filed by United India Insurance Company (UIIC) against the Chennai Metro Rail Limited’s (CMRL) decision to construct a metro station on its land in order to spare a temple property, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took a cue from a Kerala High Court verdict, and wrote, “God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioner, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment. God will be with us.”
The issue relates to the construction of an underground metro station near PVR Sathyam multiplex at Royapettah in Chennai, under Corridor 3 of the ongoing Phase II metro rail project. CMRL had initially planned to construct the station on the land belonging to a nearby temple. However, an organisation, Aalayam Kaapom Foundation, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against the proposal in 2024.
After two Judges of the then first Division Bench, which heard the PIL petition, inspected the property, CMRL decided to change the alignment and shift the metro station to the opposite land, which belonged to UIIC. However, Justice Venkatesh wrote: “The inspection that had taken place, without notice to the writ petitioner (UIIC) and right under its nose, sets up an impregnable defence of patent violation of principles of natural justice.”
He also concurred with senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing UIIC, that a show cause notice issued by CMRL on September 26, 2024, for the acquisition of the insurance company’s land, pursuant to an undertaking given by it before the Division Bench in the PIL proceedings in which UIIC was not a party, was nothing but a fait accompli and a meaningless procedure adopted by CMRL.
“The show cause notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act of 1997, at this stage, is obviously a farce. It is rather shocking that all of this was done behind the back of the petitioner — a public sector entity (under the aegis of the Union Ministry of Finance) that has spent crores of rupees of public funds to put up its Head Office,” the Judge lamented.
He took note of Mr. Narayan’s submission that UIIC’s Head Office was a unique green building worth over ₹200 crore and that it was constructed after obtaining necessary approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). CMRL had also given a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the construction of the building since it was within 50 metres from the Phase-I metro project.
However, following the construction of the entire building by pumping in crores of rupees, CMRL turned a volte face now, and decided to take away the vacant land in front of the building for the Phase II project just because of objections raised by a private organisation that claimed to represent the devotees of the Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman Temple, the Judge pointed out.
“By granting the NOC and the approval, the CMRL and CMDA led the petitioner [UIIC] to believe that its lands would not be necessary for the CMRL work. In the opinion of this court, to allow the CMDA and the CMRL to casually resile from their earlier position would be so grossly unfair and arbitrary so as to violate Article 14 [application of the laws equally to all people] of the Constitution in all its hues,” he observed.
Justice Venkatesh highlighted that the PIL petition was not filed by the temple management or the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department. He also said that an idol of deity Lord Rathina Vinayagar was seated on a pavement. Therefore, as per the original plan, CMRL had decided to relocate the idol to any other place identified by the HR&CE department.
In so far as the idol of Goddess Durgai Amman was concerned, CMRL had decided to shift the Gopuram (tower) of the temple five metres for the construction of the metro station. It will be restored to its original position following the construction. The Judge, further, found that the temple had been constructed only in 1960, and was not a 100-year-old temple, as claimed by the Aalayam Kaapom Foundation.
Since UIIC was not a party to the PIL proceedings before the Division Bench, the undertaking given by CMRL regarding the change in alignment would not bind the insurance company, the Judge said. “It is too well settled that a judicial order passed behind the back of an affected party is void vis-à-vis the said party,” he said, relying on the Supreme Court’s 1988 verdict in the A.R. Antulay versus R.S. Nayak.
After quashing the show cause notice issued by CMRL to UIIC, the judge said, it would be open to CMRL to proceed with its original intended plan of constructing the metro station within the temple premises.
“Though this is an eminently fit case to impose exemplary costs, this court desists from doing so in the hope that the State and the fifth respondent (Aalayam Kaapom Foundation, represented by its president P.R. Ramanan) will realize the true meaning of the words of Swami Vivekananda that the highest aim of religion is to unite mankind and serve humanity,” the judge concluded.
Published – March 12, 2025 12:44 am IST
