IDOL OF ARULMIGHU SIDDHIVINAYAGAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Temple and they have challenged the notice issued by the respondent Corporation stating that an encroachment has been made by the Temple to an extent of 7.35 meters x 3.30 meters by raising a brick wall structure.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that a Temple has been in existence from time immemorial and with the available records, they can establish that it was there for more than 100 years. The structure of the Temple having become old and dilapidated and on account of the unchecked growth of a peepul tree, the structure got damaged. The petitioner sought permission from the HR&CE Department and obtained permission from the HR&CE Department for reconstruction, by proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, dated 23.7.2019. When the construction was in progress, the impugned notice has been served.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that there is no encroachment and without issuing notice to the HR&CE Department, which is the authority, who granted permission, the respondent Corporation shall not proceed solely against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, wherein, the following stand has been taken :