Court rejects devotees’ bid to delay takeover of temple land

Bede Hong Bede Hong Updated 5 years ago · Published on 29 Nov 2018 11:04AM · 4 Comments

A Sri Maha Mariamman temple devotee in front of a banner calling for the preservation of the house of worship. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Nazir Sufari, November 29, 2018.

THE Shah Alam High Court has denied an application by three devotees of the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Seafield to restrain One City Development from taking over the land that the temple sits on. 

“He refused to give the stay. No cost awarded,” said the applicants’ lawyer, S. Mogan, after a hearing with justice Gunalan Muniandy in chambers this morning along with lawyers from the developer.  

“The court, after reading all the grounds and everything, put in such a way that the plaintiff don’t have grounds to get a stay,” he said, but added that the trio’s civil suit against One City will still proceed.

The injunction bid was filed by S. Thangaraju, M. Mohanakhrishnan and S. Nagarajah.

One City’s lawyer, Claudia Cheah Pek Yee, told reporters that the court rejected the application as the trio had no locus standi on the matter, and that the developer is the legal owner of the land.

Today’s ruling means that the consent judgment for the relocation of the temple remains.

The original consent judgment was part of a court solution in 2014 involving One City, the Selangor government and two claimants to the temple management – K. Chellappa and M. Nagaraju.

Both Chellappa and Nagaraju, who were involved in a separate legal battle over the control of the temple management, agreed to hand back the land that the temple sits on to One City after the developer consented to donate RM1.5 million for the construction of a new temple on one of two plots of land given by the company.

Chellappa has since been named as the temple manager, but Nagaraju refuses to abide by the consent judgment to relocate.

After the temple gave up the rights to one of the two plots of land, One City gave it another RM1 million in compensation.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, S. Mogan, says the judge didn't award cost. – The Malaysian Insight pic by Afif Abd Halim, November 29, 2018.

In June, a month after One City issued an eviction notice to the temple management, Nagaraju and his men refused to adhere to the consent judgment and move to an alternative site.

Temple committee adviser Bala Krishna told reporters that devotees had planned a hunger strike since November 22, before they filed the injunction bid.

“We went on a hunger protest for 11 days, and we’ve asked (Prime Minister) Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) to resolve the issue.

“We wanted a peaceful solution, but that never came to be. Now that the federal government has gotten involved, we are asking both the federal and state governments to maintain the temple there.”

Former Kapar MP S. Manikavasagar described the issue as a “long-standing” one that goes back to 1987, when former Selangor menteri besar Muhammad Muhammad Taib issued a directive to set aside land for the temple.

The directive was for then landowner Sime UEP Properties Bhd to set aside 2ha for a Tamil primary school and 0.4ha for the temple compound.

“The temple should be maintained there. After that, (former Selangor MB) Khir Toyo came in, and he, too, made the same decision,” said Manikavasagar.

The former PKR lawmaker said he was approached by devotees during his first term in 2009.

“I sent the documents to (former Selangor MB) Khalid Ibrahim, and later brought the documents to Dr Xavier Jayakumar when he sat on the Ribi (non-Muslim houses of worship) committee. He said there was a court case and he couldn’t do much.” – November 29, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • Malaysia 'Baru' ? More like Malaysia 'Lama' under Mahade 2.0

    Posted 5 years ago by Raman Raman · Reply

  • After taking the compensations and dont keep the words........what else can we say.....when you dont respect the court's order...... typical!

    Posted 5 years ago by Azis Yusoff · Reply

  • The legal profession tends to see things in black & white when reality is a polychromatic spectrum of infinite nuances. Almost all spots that over time become shrines, temples or pilgrimage sites can be shown to be geomantic power vortices, where magnetic force lines intersect in a specific geometry. In ancient times, those with shamanic vision would identify these power vortices & choose to live there. Eventually others will be drawn to those spots & slowly a shrine, temple, synagogue, church, mosque, or kuil will be built. In modern times with more people worshiping Money as God, these subtle energetic factors are forgotten. Temple or mosque committees are formed which get involved with territorial politics, clouding the original function of the power spot (which was to provide healing, comfort or even enlightenment to pilgrims). Then racial & religious conflicts enter the picture, making everything murkier & more contentious. Perhaps a win-win scenario would be for all of us to remember that when you peel away the labels, humans are instinctively drawn to certain areas for mental & spiritual solace or nourishment, whether it looks like a limestone cave, a patch of forest, a pagan shrine, cathedral, temple, mosque or a simple shack built under an old tree. So the issue is no longer a real estate wrangle. Wouldn't it be a positive development if humans recognize that some things have no monetary consideration & that it serves us all to be sensitive to these special power spots (regardless of what kind of structure has been erected around it)? We can easily plan development around these sites or include them without disturbing their true function.

    Posted 5 years ago by Antares Maitreya · Reply

    • A great development would have incorporated a structure or site like the temple in its planning, as a site for public space, of historical interest/museum etc, that would attract public, devotees + visitors ..and hence footfalls, a win win

      Posted 5 years ago by Jon Lang · Reply