In about-turn, devotee bent on stopping court-sanctioned temple relocation

SUBANG JAYA: A devotee of a temple at the centre of a land dispute is hoping the authorities will intervene to stop its relocation despite an agreement between the temple and the land owner four years ago.

M Nagaraju said the Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Seafield here should be preserved for its heritage value.

Nagaraju, who is fighting for the temple to remain on the land owned by developer One City, even said he and many others would “sacrifice their lives” to stop the relocation.

Nagaraju was a party in a civil suit which included the Selangor government, One City and the temple management represented by K Chellappa.

Nagaraju had also challenged Chellapa over the right to represent the temple, but failed to oust him.

According to a consent judgment in March 2014, the parties agreed that One City would provide land for a new temple, as well as a donation of RM1.5 million, in return for the vacant possession of the land at USJ 25.

Nagaraju said he had agreed to the judgment based on circumstances at that time.

He said the judge had then told him and others that based on the National Land Code, the suit was in favour of the developer.

“So the judge proposed a win-win solution, where I would be named as an intervener in the suit, the developer would provide a piece of land near the existing site (Land A), a separate piece of land for the temple’s benefit (Land B), as well as money for the relocation. The state government was also supposed to gazette the land as a place of worship,” he told FMT.

Nagaraju said he feared that if they proceeded with the case, the temple would lose everything.

After Chellappa was named the rightful temple administrator, he agreed to relocate the temple to Land B due to the bigger space and lesser traffic congestion. One City paid compensation of RM1 million to the temple for giving up its land rights to Land A.

Nagaraju claimed this was against the consent judgment.

He said the state government had never gazetted Land A as a place of worship.

He also said they were not informed by Chellappa or One City of the sale of Land A and the shifting of the temple to Land B.

However, according to the consent judgment, the rightful temple administrator can manage the temple on Land A and/or Land B.

According to Nagaraju, the title for Land A belonged to the Malaysian Highway Authority (LLM).

He said the court was only supposed to decide on who the rightful temple administrator was after the temple was relocated to Land A.

‘Heritage value’

He added that he was never agreeable to the relocation of the temple to Land B as it was “far away” from the present site.

Nagaraju said devotees at the temple wanted it to be gazetted as a heritage site, as it was 147 years old, adding that this was based on interviews with temple elders in the past.

“We also have proof from the Forestry Department that the Banyan tree on the temple grounds was 122 years old in 1999. That was nearly 20 years ago.”

Nagaraju said the temple was the only remaining building from Seafield’s estate-era.

“You can’t create new heritage. The temple should remain as a heritage site and a symbol to remember our ancestors. This is the wish of the majority of devotees.

“This is above the law. The people voted for the government and the government must fulfil the wishes of the people.

“People are willing to sacrifice their lives for the temple, including me.” -FMT