WP/40898/2026 of R.Rangaraj Vs The Superintending Engineer on 6 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the notice dated 28.09.2026 issued under sub-section (2) of Section 26 and sub-section(4) of Section 29 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Central Act 13 of 2003’].

2. The notice impugned states that National Highways Road expansion is in progress and causing obstructions because of encroachments made by the temple. Thus, notice was issued to the Administrator of the temple that they should remove the encroachments in the National Highways Road in between

28.09.2026 and 05.10.2026. In the event of failure to remove the temple encroachments from the National Highways Road, the competent authorities of the National Highways will remove the encroachments.

3. Challenging the said notice, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner would mainly contend that the subject temple viz., Thandu Mariyamman Temple reflects the sentiment of the people residing in that locality and the temple is there for several years. In and around the areas, the devotees are worshipping the temple. Even, as per the ‘A’ register, a particular portion of the land has been stated as temple land and on an earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No12389 of 2022 and this Court directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry. That apart, the Divisional Engineer in proceedings dated 02.01.2020 made an observation that the temple is not causing obstruction for free flow of traffic in the National Highways. Based on the said finding, the authorities ought not to have issued the impugned notice. He would submit that the authorities have not considered the sentiment of the people in that locality, who all are worshipping the temple and therefore, not considered the enquiry with reference to the documents produced by the temple administrators that the temple is there for several years. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Government has issued a Government

Order in G.O.(Ms)No.64, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated:08.02.2022, wherein a Divisional Monitoring Committee as well as the District Monitoring Committee have been constituted. Though this Court passed an order asking the committee to consider the issues, no such deliberation was made. On that ground also, the impugned order is to be set aside. Section 26 of the Central Act 13 of 2003 contemplates that notice and an enquiry and such an enquiry was not conducted by the Divisional Level Committee or District Level Committee.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader would oppose by stating that the temple was constructed by private parties. It is a private temple administered by few individuals by constituting a committee/trust. The temple is causing obstructions for expansion of the National Highways Road project. The authorities have already constructed a flyover and the service road is to be formed for free flow of traffic and for public usage. In the absence of adequate service road, the purpose of flyover will be defeated. Thus, the authorities have taken a decision and invoked the provisions of the Central Act 13 of 2003 and passed the impugned order.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis on hand.

7. Let us now examine the scope of Control of National Highway Road(Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. It is a Central Act, 13 of 2003, enacted by Parliament in the 53rd year republic of India. It is not in dispute that the subject land has been declared as National Highways and the temple is situated in the National Highways Road. The National Highways authority found that the land belongs to National Highways was encroached upon and a temple was constructed by few individuals. With reference to the order dated 02.01.2020, relied on by the petitioners, the said order came to be challenged by one K.Velumani in W.P.No.12389 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, without expressing any view or opinion as to whether there is an encroachment or not, qua directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry in view of G.O(Ms)No.64. This Court, on an earlier occasion, has not considered the scope under the provisions of the Control of Highways (Land and Traffic)Act, 2002. Since G.O.(Ms).No.64 has been referred, citing the G.O.(Ms)No.64, direction was issued to conduct an enquiry.

8. Pertinently, the Government order issued in G.O(Ms).No.64 was issued by the State Government Department viz., specifically Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The said Government Order applies in respect of the Government encroachment in water bodies and other Government lands that means land vested with the State Government. As far as the present impugned notice is concerned, it has been issued under Section 26(2) of the Control of

National Highways(Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. It is an Act of Parliament and therefore, when the notice has been issued under Central Act, 13 of 2013, the application of the State Government order regarding constitution of monitoring committee may not arise at all. When the competent designated authorities under the Central Act initiated action for removal of encroachment, then the question of application of certain other provisions which is to be followed for eviction of land belongs to State Government would have no application.

9. Let us now consider the scope of Section 26 of the Central Act, 13 of 2003. Section 26(2) reads as under: “When, as a result of the periodical inspection of Highway land or otherwise, the Highway Administration or the officer authorised by such Administration in this behalf is satisfied that any unauthorised occupation has taken place on highway land, the Highway Administration or the officer so authorised shall serve a notice in a prescribed form on the person causing or responsible for such unauthorised occupation requiring him to remove such unauthorised occupation and to restore such highway land in its original condition as before the unauthorised occupation within the period specified in the notice.”

10. Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 in unambiguous terms reiterates that during inspection, if the Highways Administration found unauthorized occupation, the authorized officer shall serve notice on the person responsible for such an unauthorized occupation requiring him to remove the same and restore the Highways in its original condition as before the unauthorized occupation. Sub-Section(3) of Section 26 of the Central Act stipulates that notice under Sub-Section(2) of Section 26 of the Central Act shall specify the time limit for removal of unauthorized occupation. Sub-Section(4) of Section 26 of the Central Act indicates the manner in which, the notice is to be served, if notice is unable to be served, the contents of the notice shall be advertised in a local newspaper for the knowledge of the person, to whom the notice is addressed. All further procedures are contemplated, therefore, it is to be examined whether the procedures as contemplated under Sub-Section(2) of Section 26 of the Central Act has been followed or not.

11. In the present case, even in the year 2020, the temple encroachment was identified in the National Highways Road and the Divisional Engineer passed an order on 02.01.2020 in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.No.14141 of 2017, filed by a third party. After conducting enquiry, the Divisional Engineer vide proceedings dated 02.01.2020 arrived at a conclusion that the said land is an encroachment made in the National Highways Road and further, stated that if the National Highways lands are required for road expansion it will to be handed over. Further, there is an observation that during that point of time there was no serious obstruction caused by the temple encroachment. Pertinently, the order dated 02.01.2020 came to be challenged by one K.Velumani in W.P.No.12389 of 2022. In the said order also, the Division Bench directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry with reference to G.O. (Ms.)No.64.

12. This Court is of the considered view that an enquiry was conducted originally in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.No.14141 of 2017 and after conducting an enquiry, the authorities found that the temple encroachment was identified in the National Highways Road and passed an order on 02.01.2020 and the said order came to be challenged in another Writ petition in W.P.No.12389 of 2022 and yet another enquiry was also directed to be conducted as per G.O(Ms.)No.64. G.O(Ms.)No.64, which has no relevance in the context under the provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic)Act, 2002, which is a Central Act.

13. At the outset, the temple encroachments are identified long before by the authorities. There was an acute necessity for expansion of National Highways Road and overbridge was already constructed and in public usage. A service road is imminent beneath the overbridge to ease the traffic in that locality and for public usage. The authorities found it is inevitable to develop a service road, failing which, the purpose of construction of overbridge by spending huge amount will be defeated.

14. Section 26(2) in unambiguous terms reiterates that the Highways Administration or the office authorities by such administration if satisfies that any unauthorized occupation has taken place in highways land, the authorities shall serve a notice to the person causing or responsible for such unauthorized occupation requiring him to remove such unauthorized occupation.

15. With reference to the enquiry conducted by the competent authority in pursuance to the order of this Court in W.P.No.14141 of 2017, an order dated 02.01.2020 was issued. Even in the said order, the authorities have made an observation during that point of time that there was no serious obstruction caused by temple encroachment. However, they have concluded with a rider clause by stating that if the National Highways properties are required for further expansion then without any obstruction they should handover the land to the National Highways Authority. At present, after construction of overbridge, the authorities found it necessary to develop a service road and therefore, formed an opinion that the temple encroachments are to be removed. That apart, Section 26(2) of the Central Act also states that unauthorized occupation if required to be removed, then it is to be removed by issuing a notice. At the outset, the necessity arose for the authorities to take action for removal of encroachment in the National Highways for the purpose of developing the service road for public usage.

In view of the facts as well as the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraph, this Court does not find any merit to entertain the writ petition and consequently stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 06-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mp To

1. The Superintending Engineer National Highways, Narasothipatti, Kurangu Chavadi, Ommalur Main Road, Salem-4.

2. The Divisional Engineer National Highways, ATT Colony, Coimbatore-641 018.

3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer National Highways, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

4. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore-641 018.

5. The District Revenue Officer Coimbatore District Coimbatore.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore North Revenue Division Coimbatore and District - 641 030.

7. The Tahsildar Coimbatore North Taluk Dr. Balasundaram Road Coimbatore - 641 018.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. mp WP No. 40898 of 2026 06-10-2026