Temple encroachment removal requires survey, notice, and hearing before coercive action.

The disputes concerned temple property comprised in R.S. No. 22/8, Aloor B Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

The petitioner in WP(MD) No. 15440 of 2024 claimed to be a lessee of approximately six cents of the temple property and asserted that the lease rent was regularly paid.

A compound wall, approximately seven feet high, had been constructed around the property, allegedly to prevent third-party encroachment.

The authorities treated the construction as an encroachment and issued an eviction notice dated 05.07.2024.

The connected writ petition, WP(MD) No. 14077 of 2024, sought removal of the compound wall and restoration of a water stream and cart track allegedly used by farmers of the lower riparian area of Kattukalam Pond.

The petitioners contended that the eviction action had been initiated without a prior show-cause notice or adequate opportunity of hearing.

The respondents submitted that the property would be surveyed in the petitioner’s presence and that any encroachment, if established, would be removed in accordance with law.

Whether the eviction notice dated 05.07.2024, issued without first providing a separate show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, could be sustained.

Whether the respondents should be directed to survey the disputed temple property in the petitioner’s presence and remove any encroachment only in accordance with law.

Whether the compound wall and the alleged obstruction to the water stream and cart track were liable to be removed at that stage.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by eviction or removal proceedings must receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to submit objections.

The Court further applied the procedural rule that any alleged encroachment must be determined through an appropriate survey and that removal can take place only in accordance with law after due opportunity to the affected person.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the common order; the directions were founded on procedural fairness and lawful administrative decision-making.

The Court noted that the petitioner disputed the allegation of encroachment and claimed lawful possession as a temple lessee.

Since the impugned eviction notice had been issued without a separate prior opportunity to respond, the Court adopted a remedial course rather than immediately quashing the proceedings or ordering demolition.

It permitted the petitioner to treat the notice dated 05.07.2024 itself as a show-cause notice and to submit a reply.

The respondents were then directed to conduct a survey in the petitioner’s presence, thereby ensuring that the factual question of encroachment was objectively determined.

Only if encroachment was found could removal be undertaken, and that too in accordance with law and after providing due opportunity.

The petitioner was permitted to treat the eviction notice dated 05.07.2024 as a show-cause notice and submit a reply within two weeks from receipt of the order.

Thereafter, the respondents were directed to survey the property in the petitioner’s presence and, if encroachment was established, remove it in accordance with law after granting due opportunity.

The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks from receipt of the order.

Until completion of this process, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.