Citing violations of natural justice and promissory estoppel, the madras high court has ruled against chennai Metro rail Limited's (CMRL) attempt to purchase a piece of United india Insurance Company land for a metro station.
 
The court noted that without first contacting the insurance company, the decision was made to move the station from its original position within the grounds of Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar and Durgai Amman temple, Whites Road, Chennai.


On september 26, 2024, CMRL sent United india Insurance Company a notification outlining its proposal to purchase 837 square meters of their property to build the Thousand Lights Metro Station.  The Aalayam Kaapom Foundation had previously filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opposing the purchase of temple land, which was the reason for the location change.

The High Court's first bench had noted CMRL's commitment to move the station's entrance and exit to the other side of the insurance company's property.  Nevertheless, the business was not granted a hearing or a party to the PIL.
 
The business built a new headquarters using a structural steel diagrid design that was unique.  The 14-story structure has plenty of parking and a total built-up area of almost 25,000 square meters, which includes the 837 square meters that the CMRL is requesting.
 

The land acquisition notice was merely a formality to support a predetermined judgment, according to the bench of Justice N anand venkatesh, which rendered the verdict, summarizing it as a "post-decisional hearing."  Given that CMRL had previously issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the construction of its main office, the bench determined that the petitioner's reasonable expectations had been breached.  Based on this guarantee, the corporation spent more than Rs 250 crore to develop a building of architectural significance.

The court emphasized that government bodies cannot arbitrarily revoke promises made to private firms since the principle of promissory estoppel binds them to their obligations.  Citing the supreme Court's decision in acharya Maharajshri narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj Vs. The state of gujarat (1975), which upheld the state's authority to use eminent domain over religious estates, it also rejected the argument that temple sites ought to be automatically free from acquisition.

The court also pointed out procedural errors, such as the first bench's joint site visit without the petitioner's knowledge, which it described as an "abuse of power" and a violation of natural justice under Article 14 of the indian Constitution.
 
It emphasized that infrastructure projects serve a larger societal purpose and rejected arguments that temple sentiments should take precedence over the general welfare.


The construction of a metro train station would surely bring the Almighty's generosity and charity, benefiting the thousands of people who visit the temple from all walks of life, some of whom may be devotees.  The kerala high court said, "God will pardon us."  The petitioners, the authorities, and the author of this ruling will all be protected by God.  Justice venkatesh noted, "God will be with us.
 

The court also emphasized that, even after a public sector entity has obtained all necessary clearances and the CMRL's NOC, and based on a proceeding that was conducted entirely behind its back, it would be totally against the public interest to demolish a building or parts of a recently constructed structure that was put up for Rs 200 crores.
 
As a result, the high court quashed the contested notice and ordered CMRL to go back to its initial plan of building the station on the grounds of Durgai Amman temple and Arul Mighu Sri Rathina Vinayagar, both located on Whites Road in chennai, as long as all legal conditions are fulfilled.  Although it declined to impose fees, it did state that it hoped the authorities would learn a more comprehensive lesson about justice and openness in public decision-making.
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

Find out more: