Temple authorities must verify encroachment and provide due opportunity before removing alleged occupants.

The petitioners claimed possession of land measuring 0.52.00 hectares in Survey No.275/2 at Edhumalai Village, allegedly forming part of the property of Arulmigu Kamba Perumal Temple.

Their predecessor had instituted O.S.No.288 of 1990 before the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, against the temple authorities and obtained a decree of injunction dated 22 August 1994 restraining interference with his possession.

The fourth respondent subsequently issued a notice dated 22 April 2024 proposing action against the petitioners in relation to the temple property.

The petitioners challenged the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought protection based on the earlier civil-court decree.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioners requested that the impugned notice be treated as a show-cause notice and sought an opportunity to submit a further explanation.

Whether the notice dated 22 April 2024 could be treated as a show-cause notice and whether the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity to submit their explanation before any coercive action was taken

Whether the earlier decree of injunction prevented the temple authorities from surveying the property and initiating lawful proceedings for removal of any encroachment

The Court exercised its supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, requiring that the affected occupants be given an opportunity to explain their position before adverse action is taken.

The Court also recognised that a decree of injunction protects possession against specified interference but does not, by itself, confer title or immunise an occupant from lawful proceedings for removal of encroachment.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment; the Court directed that any removal action must be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the petitioners’ title or the validity of their possession.

It noted the petitioners’ reliance on the earlier injunction decree, but also considered the respondents’ submission that the decree was limited in scope and did not bar proceedings against persons allegedly occupying temple property unlawfully.

Balancing the petitioners’ claim of protection with the temple authorities’ power to investigate encroachment, the Court treated the impugned notice as a show-cause notice and required the petitioners to submit their explanation.

It further directed the respondents to survey the property in the petitioners’ presence and to remove any encroachment only in accordance with law and after granting due opportunity.

The petitioners were permitted to treat the notice dated 22 April 2024 as a show-cause notice and submit their reply within two weeks of receiving the order.

The respondents were directed to conduct a survey in the petitioners’ presence and, if encroachment was found, to remove it in accordance with law after providing due opportunity.

The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks, and no coercive steps were permitted until then.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.