Where to "Park" the "Place of Worship”?
Can a ‘park’ also mean and include a ‘place
of worship’? and can a temple in a park be
considered part and parcel of a park?
These questions arose after the Madras
High Court, on 04.03.2026, passed a
judgment in Jesudass Cornelius v The
District Collector and Others (WP No. 1200
of 2022) holding inter alia that a Temple
situated in a place designated as ‘park’ has
to be considered as a part and parcel of the
Park and as a place for relaxation, which is
likely to reduce mental stress of the
people.
Facts: In the year 1960, a layout developed in Veeraragavan Village, Thiruverkadu, Thiruvallur District in Tamil Nadu was approved by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning. In the approved layout, specific areas were earmarked as ‘park’ and ‘playground’ measuring about 9000 square feet. However, the said designated park was not maintained as a park, and a temple of Hindu faith came to be constructed in over 2260 square feet out of 9000 square feet or thereabout, by the residents of the layout. More than 5 decades lapsed without anybody questioning the construction of the temple over the space designated for a park.
In 2022, a writ petition praying the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing, among others, the District Collector Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur and Commissioner, Thiruverkadu Municipality to maintain land earmarked for park and play ground in approved the layout in, Veeraraghavan Village, Thiruverkadu, Tiruvallur District as park and playground came to be filed.
Judgment: Dismissing the Petition1, the Hon’ble Court inter alia observed that “Parks are essential public places designed for enjoyment, recreation and relaxation. They also provide area for exercise, walking and social gatherings. It promotes physical and mental well-being. It protects the biodiversity by way of providing improved air and water bodies. Parks are also serving as a vital community hub and provides safe natural set-up for all people. On the other hand, the construction of Temple and worshipping of Deity is also a way for relaxation, which promotes the mental well- being of majority of residents of the subject layout. Therefore, at any cost, the Temple has to be considered as a part and parcel of the Park and as a place for relaxation, which reduce mental stress of the people”.
The Hon’ble Court went on to note that since the Temple was situated over lands only to the extent of 2260 sq.ft., out of the total vacant area of 9000 sq.ft., it will no way affect the movement of public in the said park. The Hon’ble Court also observed that at any cost, the belief and faith of the general public, those who worship the Deity, cannot be disturbed merely on the ground of alleged encroachment. Taking note of the actual use of the property, the Hon’ble Court also observed that in the instant case, with the wishes of majority of residents of the subject layout, the Temple was constructed in a portion of an area, which was earmarked as “park” and that the residents therein continued and were continuing worshipping the Deity in that Temple for more than 5 decades. Thus, the Hon'ble Court concluded that a Temple would be considered as a place for mental well-being of the majority of people living therein and the same, in the instant case, shall be treated as part and parcel of the park.
Analysis: As per the Tamil Nadu Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1959 (the “1959 Regulations”) the word "park" means a piece of Iand on which there are no buildings or of which not more than one- twentieth part is covered with buildings, and the whole or the remainder of which is laid out as a garden with trees, plants or flower-beds or as a lawn or as a meadow and maintained as a place for the resort or the public for recreation, air or light.
And "play-field", under the 1959
Regulations, means a piece of land
adapted for the purposes of play, game or
sport and used by schools or colleges or
club.
As per the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, "temple" means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.
As per the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947, "temple" means a place, by whatever name known, which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, (the Hindu community or any section thereof), as a place of public religious worship, and includes subsidiary shrines and mantapams attached to such place.
Whilst being cognizant of the specific context and background to each of the legislations set out above, a combined reading of all the definitions - in the author's respectful view, do not suggest that a temple could be considered as a place of relaxation or recreation like a park but could only be treated as a place of public religious worship by the persons professing Hindu faith.
Section 2(2) of TNTCP Act, defines that "amenities" include streets, open spaces, parks, recreational grounds, play-grounds, water and electric supply, street lighting, sewerage, drainage, public works and other utilities, services and conveniences.
Further, in the TNTCP Act, “Public Building” ordinarily used by the Public for religious worship is defined under section 2(33) (c) (ii) which includes a temple and it is not made part of section 2(2) of TNTCP Act which defines "amenities" and considering temple to be a part of an amenity, i.e. park shall be misplaced.
It is also to be noted that the preamble of TNTCP Act is to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu and for purposes connected therewith and the powers to revoke or modify a permission to development already granted rests with the appropriate authority as per section 54 of the TNTCP Act and not any other person.
In Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Mudappa and others [(1991) 4 SCC 54], the open space in question had been reserved for a public park. However, pursuant to the orders of the State Government, and by a Resolution, the Bangalore Development Authority allotted the open space in favour of the appellant, a private medical trust, for the purpose of constructing a hospital.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The Legislature (Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976) entrusted the responsibility to alter and approve the Scheme to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) but the BDA in complete breach of faith reposed in it, preferred to take directions issued on command of the Chief Executive of the State. This resulted not only an error in law but much beyond it”.
“An illegality or any action contrary to law does not become in accordance with law because it is done at the behest of the Chief Executive of the State. No one is above law. In a democracy what prevails is law and rule and not the height of the person exercising the power. For these reasons the entire proceedings before the State Government suffered from absence of jurisdiction. Even the exercise of power was vitiated and ultra vires. Therefore, the orders of the Government to convert the site reserved for public park to civic amenity and to allot it for private nursing home to Bangalore Medical Trust and the resolution of the Bangalore Development Authority in compliance of it were null, void and without jurisdiction”.
Conclusion: Although there was an option of dismissing the writ petition by merely observing that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the Court with this Petition (particularly in view of the fact that the people worshipping at the Temple for over five decades and that they should not be disturbed at this stage), the Hon’ble Court has observed that the installation of the Temple in the area designated for a park was not an encroachment, but that it is the wishes of majority residents of the layout. In the author’s humble opinion, this approach may likely cause an avoidable imbalance in appreciating the competing interests of public preference vis-a-vis public purpose, leading to a disregard of statutorily supported public purpose(s) in a conflict with oscillating public preferences.
Though Parks are established for inter alia, the recreation of the public, it may not be readily available to suggest – either on a reading of the law set out above or under any judicial decisions thereon, that all places that may potentially be treated as a place for recreation, be deemed as a ‘Park’.
It is the authority established under the TNTCP Act to decide on any modification or alteration in an approved layout and not the majority of the people occupying the approved layout or the popular public preference.
1Vide judgment dated 04.03.2026 in Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others (WP No. 1200 of 2022)