The Madras High Court on Wednesday, June 7, 2023 directed its Registry to send a detailed proposal to the Tamil Nadu government within a couple of days, explaining the need to acquire over nine acres of land situated right opposite the main entrance to the Madurai Bench of the High Court, to cater to the growing infrastructure needs of the bench.
Justices G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan also requested Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram to follow the matter up with the government authorities, and apprise the court of the progress by June 13. The interim orders were passed on a 2019 public interest litigation petition that asked for the acquiring of the land for the court’s needs.
The petitioner, M. Saravanan had stated that 9.46 acres of barren land opposite to the Madurai Bench belonged to the Kothanda Ramaswamy Temple in Y. Othakadai in Madurai, and that it could be acquired by the State government and given to the High Court for parking of vehicles of those who visit the court.
When the case was heard on March 23, 2021, a Division Bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh (now a Supreme Court judge) had opined that the land, if acquired, could also be used for constructing a guest house for judges from other States and also for the State judicial officers, since such a facility was available in Chennai but not in Madurai.
The A-G on Wednesday brought it to the notice of the Bench led by Justice Jayachandran that after the observation made in March 2021, the High Court Registry had sent a letter to the government in April 2021 but that the requisition was bereft of details such as the extent of the property required to be acquired, the buildings to be constructed and so on.
Concurring with the A-G that the government would be able to assess its financial liability only if the High Court Registry sends a detailed proposal listing out its requirements, the Bench recorded the submission of advocate B. Vijay, representing the Registry, that a detailed proposal regarding the requirements would be submitted to the government within two days.
The A-G also told the court that a decision on whether the land could be acquired or obtained on long lease would be taken after perusing an order passed by a special Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and P.D. Audikesavalu on June 2 this year clarifying its previous direction that had prohibited alienation of temple lands in toto.
Stating that the June 2 order, passed on a revision petition preferred by the State government, was not out yet, the A-G hoped that it would be made available within a day or two. Since two individuals also had claimed ownership over the land opposite to Madurai Bench, that could be decided depending upon their case pending before the Supreme Court, he said.
When an advocate wanted to implead himself and oppose the alienation of the temple land for the use of the High Court Bench, Justice Jayachandran asked what he had been doing all these years when the land was lying barren for decades without yielding any income to the temple, which lacked funds even for daily pujas.
The judge warned the advocate of being imposed with costs if his intention was to gain publicity by filing an impleading petition.
