CMDA, Corporation directed to investigate land grab charge against Velankannai shrine

Admitting a plea by K Gopi, a fisherman and resident of Odaima Nagar, seeking to restrain the church management from encroaching on government land, a division bench comprising Justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam, said, “In the light of facts and circumstances, the CMDA and the corporation, after putting the church on notice, should do a joint inspection and file a status report with supporting documents including photographs by June 5.” 

The bench also issued notices to the officials concerned, including the revenue secretary, the district collector and the Corporation Commissioner. 

Gopi had contended in his plea that the present place where the church stood was the Odaikuppam hamlet. This was originally shown as pond in the revenue records prior to 1987. The pond had natural water springs and catered to the drinking water needs of the villagers, he said. 

He alleged that the Annai Velankannishrine had encroached on the pond and the management, using their influence, manipulated and altered the revenue records to their whims, he said in the plea. The land where the pond existed had been given a new survey number while revenue records prior to 1987 clearly classified it as a pond. The records said it was a waterbody, the petitioner said. 

Petitioner’s counsel AP Suryaprakasam said, “Due to the influx of outsiders, the areas surrounding the hamlet turned into a concrete jungle. This destroyed all the natural waterbodies and caused the drying up of the pond.” 

He further submitted that complaints in this regard had evoked the same response over the years. The authorities assured the encroachments would be removed and the pond restored. But nothing changed on the ground, he said. 

The villagers were in for a surprise when the church put up a large board announcing the construction of a new church, exactly at the place where the pond existed, he said. 

The church management was trying to construct a building on a waterbody and just 100 meters from the high tide line of the shore, which was in violation of the coastal regulations in place, he added.