Chennai: “God is Almighty.
God does not need a certain place for His Divine Presence.
This is a fanatical that is the root cause of all problems to divide people on behalf of religion (SIC),” said Madras High Court on Friday, refusing to Stop the removal of a temple that stands on public land.
“The Petitioner, in Garb prepared a temple, unable to decipher the property of the highway, which was intended for public use regardless of belief, caste and religion,” the division bench consisting of Judge Vaidathan and D Bharatha Chakravarthy.
“If the applicant is very specialized in facilitating worshipers to worship Vinayagar, open for him to trigger land or land that is not burdened, if any, available for the temple, and after that shift to that place,” said the judges.
The court graduated from the request transferred by Periyasamy who was trying to cancel the notification issued by the State Highway Department to eliminate the temple in Veppanthattai, in the Tamil Nadu regambor district.
The applicant, the trustee of the temple, said that the mandir had been around for more than three decades and was built without causing obstruction for public free flow and transportation.
Refuse to accept the same thing, the court said, “Even though the applicant has stated that the temple was built three decades ago and the land belonged to the temple, what prevented it from producing the documents needed to determine the case?” Submission that the temple does not cause obstacles to the flow of public or free traffic so far and is used purely for the purpose of worship is not acceptable for that reason, the first time, the applicant has failed to produce documents to prove it to prove that the land is under the control of trust, said the judges.
This is separate, if the applicant’s submission is received, then everyone will break the public land and come up with a request that there are no obstacles for any public and, therefore, they must be allowed to continue their illegal work, the court added.
Temple can’t seize land, God ‘omnipresent’, said Madras High Court
