Madras High Court upholds refusal to approve church in Hindu-majority village, orders unapproved structure demolished over law-and-order concerns

The petitioner obtained permission from the village panchayat in 2014 to construct a community hall on land in Survey No. 264/1, Nattarpatti Village.

The petitioner later added a spire and used the building for church services without obtaining the District Collector’s prior approval for religious use.

Following a direction in an earlier public-interest petition to apply for approval, the petitioner applied to the Collector, who rejected the application and directed removal of the unapproved structure.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226.

1. Whether the Collector’s refusal to approve use of the building as a church was unlawful or arbitrary, particularly in light of the reported risk to public peace and order

2. Whether the Collector could direct removal of the unapproved religious structure and restoration of the building to its permitted use as a community hall

Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, as set out in the judgment, requires prior approval of the District Collector before a site is used for a building intended for public worship or religious purposes; the Collector may refuse approval if such use is likely to endanger public peace and order.

The Court also referred to Government Letter No. 4398/L&O.B/2023-3 dated 7 March 2024, which prescribed obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Collector before seeking plan approval for a religious structure.

The Court treated removal of the unapproved structure as a consequence of the refusal of approval.

The Court found that the permission granted in 2014 was for a community hall, while the spire and religious use were introduced without the required prior approval.

It accepted the Collector’s consideration of reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Superintendent of Police, which apprehended law-and-order problems, and held that the Collector had considered relevant material under Rule 4(3) and acted in accordance with the applicable government instruction.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to interfere with the rejection as illegal, unreasonable, or arbitrary.

It directed the Collector to take steps to remove the unapproved structure and restore the building to its approved use as a community hall within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order; no costs were awarded.