Madras HC Stays Church Construction Near Mariyamman Temple at Kalapatty, Coimbatore, Citing Revenue Records and Pending Civil Suit

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court granted interim injunction against construction of a church on land revenue records describe as a public road, pending disposal of a civil suit filed in 2011.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, on 29 May 2026 granted an interim injunction restraining construction of a church at Survey No. 155/2 (New S. No. 1275), Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore North. The bench found that revenue records describe the survey number as a tar road, that a civil suit challenging the original 2010 permission for the construction has been pending before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore since 2011, and that an earlier order of this court in WP No. 8128 of 2024 had already directed the church to await disposal of that suit before making any fresh application. The District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued communications providing police protection to enable the sixth respondent, the CSI Christ King Church, to resume construction, and it is those communications that the petitioner sought to quash.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Balasubramaniyam N, a resident of Kalapatty which falls within the Coimbatore Corporation limit, filed WP No. 20267 of 2026 during the vacation sitting of the court. He challenged two communications: an order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the District Collector, Coimbatore, and an order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore North, both bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 25818/2019/E2. Both communications directed police protection to facilitate construction of a church by the sixth respondent on Old Survey No. 155/2 (New S. No. 1275) and Old Survey No. 155/1 (New S. No. 1276/3), described in the petition as government poramboke land and a public road.

The petitioner also sought a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to remove what he characterised as illegal construction on those survey numbers.

The matter was first listed for admission on 21.05.2026. The petitioner's counsel pressed for short notice on grounds of urgency, stating that construction which had been on hold for years had recently resumed. The bench directed notice to the contesting private respondent returnable by 29.05.2026. When the matter was listed on that date, counsel for the sixth respondent sought time to file a counter. The bench noted it could have disposed of the petition outright since the issue had, in its view, already been concluded by an earlier order, but chose to give the church an opportunity to respond. Because the petitioner insisted on interim relief, the bench proceeded to examine the facts.

History of the Permission and the Pending Civil Suit

Survey No. 155/1 at Kalapatty has a Mariyamman Temple that has been in existence for over a hundred years. The petitioner stated that of approximately one thousand families now residing in the village, 950 profess Hinduism, 15 profess Islam, and very few profess Christianity.

Despite opposition from the Hindu community, the then District Collector granted permission on 30.01.2010 for construction of a church in Survey No. 155/2. Worshippers of the Mariyamman Temple responded by filing O.S. No. 1378 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, seeking a declaration that the 2010 permission was improper and a permanent injunction. That suit remains pending.

Because of sustained local opposition, construction could not proceed for thirteen years after the permission was granted. When the private respondents attempted to resume construction, law and order problems arose again. Peace meetings were conducted. The District Collector then called upon the private respondents to stop work. Aggrieved by that stop-work direction, the Church of South India filed WP No. 8128 of 2024.

That writ petition was disposed of on 28.04.2026. The order, authored by Justice M. Dhandapani, noted that the permission dated 30.01.2010 had been granted for Survey No. 1276/3 (Old S. No. 155/2) and that the civil suit in O.S. No. 1378 of 2011 was still pending. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court granted the church liberty to make a fresh application for construction only after disposal of O.S. No. 1378 of 2011.

Revenue Records, Building Rules, and Article 25

The Division Bench examined the revenue records and found that Survey No. 155/2 is recorded as a tar road. The bench referred to orders of the Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009 and 31.01.2018 in SLP No. 8519/2006, which made clear that religious structures cannot be permitted to come up on roads and road margins.

The bench also referred to Annexure 17 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, which requires that an application for building approval for a religious structure be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector. The bench observed that this requirement implies prior approval, and that such approval cannot be mechanically granted: the authority must examine the need for the NOC, particularly where there is strong opposition.

On the constitutional dimension, the bench acknowledged the right to practise, profess and propagate religion under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, but noted that the right is expressly subject to public order, morality and health. Relying on Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal ((1970) 1 SCC 98), the bench observed that disturbance of the even tempo of public life in a locality falls within the scope of public order.

The bench noted that Coimbatore is a communally sensitive city that has witnessed bomb blasts and religious riots. The proposed church would come up within a short distance of the existing Mariyamman Temple. The bench observed that where Hindus constitute an overwhelming majority and vigorously oppose construction of a church in the immediate vicinity of a temple, the authority must not casually brush the objection aside.

The bench also referred to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in WP No. 46839 of 2019 dated 14.07.2020 (Sanathana Kalakshetra v. BBMP), which held that there is no right to construct temples on a footpath and that such construction cannot be considered an essential part of any religion or religious practice protected under Article 25.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, one of the two judges on the bench, had earlier in WP No. 49192 of 2025 (A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai), by order dated 22.01.2026, observed that the presence of an idol on a public road for more than thirty years is no defence and that every moment an illegal superstructure stands on a public road gives a fresh cause of action to the Commissioner to invoke powers under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

Why the Bench Granted Interim Relief

The bench was careful to state that it was not holding that opposition alone is sufficient to defeat a right. It observed that if a right is established or if opposition is found to be unreasonable, the State should go to any extent to uphold the right. The bench also noted that considerations would have been different if the construction were on patta land whose title is beyond dispute, with no religious structure of another community in the immediate vicinity and no opposition.

In the present case, however, three factors combined: the revenue record shows the site is a public road; the location is immediately adjacent to an old temple; and there is vigorous opposition. The bench found that title cannot vest in a private body when the revenue record indicates a public road, and that title must be established by filing a suit. As on the date of the order, there is no declaration of title in favour of the church.

The bench found a prima facie case made out. It held that irreparable hardship and loss to social amity would result if interim relief were not granted, and that the balance of convenience lay against the private respondents, particularly in light of the earlier order in WP No. 8128 of 2024. The bench read that earlier order as implying that the status quo must be maintained until O.S. No. 1378 of 2011 is disposed of. It was conceded before the bench that the civil suit filed by the Hindu community remains pending.

Order

The Division Bench granted an order of interim injunction in WP No. 20267 of 2026. The injunction operates against the construction of the church at the petition mentioned site pending further orders. The matter is listed before the bench, with the sixth respondent directed to file a counter affidavit. Notice to the seventh respondent, Mr. Balan @ Balraj, remained awaited as of the date of the order.