Madras High Court
Administrative and Public LawProperty and Real Estate Law

Police must protect temple fencing, but fencing cannot be used to dispossess anyone.

T.Jayarman vs The State Rep. by, The District Collector

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 09, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Police must protect temple fencing, but fencing cannot be used to dispossess anyone.. T.Jayarman vs The State Rep. by, The District Collector. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, a worshipper at Shri Arulmigu Ennaiyaalum Kanna Perumal Kovil, sought police protection to fence temple land in Survey No. 62/3, alleging that nearby residents were consuming liquor, littering, and engaging in activities causing inconvenience to worshippers

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The petitioner stated that the temple’s Executive Officer had sought police protection and that the petitioner had also submitted representations on 8 and 22 June 2026 without receiving action

Source reference: p. 4

In response to the Court’s notice, the respondents submitted that the Executive Officer had initiated steps, and the police stated that they would provide protection for fencing the temple property

Source reference: p. 4
02

Issues

1. Whether police protection should be directed for fencing the temple property at the petitioner’s request, when the Executive Officer had independently sought such protection

Source reference: pp. 4–5

2. Whether fencing could proceed without dispossessing any person from the property under its guise

Source reference: p. 5
03

Law Applied

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226, invoked by the petitioner’s prayer for a writ of mandamus, and the respondents’ undertaking that police protection would be provided for fencing the temple property.

Source reference: pp. 2, 4–5

The Court’s direction was limited to facilitating the fencing activity and expressly prohibited dispossession of any person under its guise

Source reference: pp. 4–5
04

Reasoning

The Court found no need to grant protection at the petitioner’s instance because the Executive Officer, who managed the temple, had himself requested it and the police had agreed to provide appropriate protection

Source reference: p. 5

The Court confined the protection to fencing the temple property, required completion by 20 November 2026, and safeguarded against any person being dispossessed under the guise of that work.

Source reference: p. 5
05

Holding

The petition was ordered on the above terms.

The respondent-police were directed to provide appropriate protection to the Executive Officer for fencing the temple property, to be completed by 20 November 2026, and to submit a report to the Court.

Source reference: p. 5

The Court clarified that no person could be dispossessed under the guise of fencing and listed the matter for reporting compliance on 23 November 2026

Source reference: p. 5
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

T.JayarmanvsThe State Rep. by, The District Collector

Madras High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment