Can the plaintiff be denied the right to use public road if he has alternate access to his property?

There is no requirement to approach this case from the stand point of right of easement. It is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that S. No. 42 is the only access to their property. Even assuming that the plaintiffs have an alternate access to their property, that does not mean that the plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to use a public street for ingress and egress to their property. The law on this issue is too well settled. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

S.A. No. 190 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

Decided On: 25.03.2022

Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil  Vs.  Pappayee and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/2918/2022

Print Page

What approach should the court adopt if there is an encroachment by a temple on a public street?

In the considered view of this Court, whoever commits an illegal act of encroaching upon a public street, even if it is a temple, should be prevented from undertaking such an illegal act. If any structure is put up in the public street and thereby, the access to the public in using the street is restricted or prevented, such a structure has to be removed immediately. There used to be a time when some individuals developed an impression that they can encroach upon a public space in the name of a temple or by planting an idol in that place. Courts are no more concerned about who or in what name such encroachments take place. We have reached a situation where even if GOD encroaches upon a public space, Courts will direct removal of such encroachments, since public interest and rule of law must be safeguarded and upheld by Courts. Courts cannot be hoodwinked by encroaching and constructing a temple in the name of God. We have enough temples and no God has made any request to construct new temples by encroaching upon public space or by raising a structure in the name of the temple.

{Para 21}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

S.A.No.190 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013

Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil Vs Pappayee

CORAM

E MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

PRONOUNCING ORDERS ON : 25.03.2022.

Citation: MANU/TN/2918/2022.

Print Page