 14 SCC 62] and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority, where the courts held that no encroachments should be permitted in the name of place of worship.){kind=link}
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to place on record the order dated February 18, 1991 whereby a religious committee was directed to be constituted in a plea seeking direction to the Delhi Government to remove an encroachment in front of the petitioner’s property in Defence Colony.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Palli has given the direction in order to appreciate, whether this matter was required to be placed before the religious committee. The Delhi Government had submitted a status report stating that the demolition drive by PWD has not happened and that the said structure has been referred to a 4-member religious committee for approval of demolition.
The Court had previously directed the DCP (South), Hauz Khas to render necessary assistance to the Delhi Government in carrying out a demolition drive at Defence Colony, proposed to be carried out on October 4. Senior Advocate P.V. Kapur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner displayed photos of the said encroachment and submitted that the intent of referral to the religious committee cannot be to permit the unauthorised encroachment.
The matter was listed for further hearing on October 26. According to the petitioner, during the Covid-19 pandemic, an unknown person trespassed and illegally constructed a temple on the footpath in front of his property. He further stated that people gather there and indulge in “rowdiness and gambling and suspected drinking of alcohol and consuming illegal substances”.
The petition relied on the Supreme Court verdict in Union of India vs State of Gujarat [(2011) 14 SCC 62] and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority, where the courts held that no encroachments should be permitted in the name of place of worship.
The petition further averred that in the guise of the ongoing pandemic, the encroachment may expand to adjoining spaces. The illegal structure and the gatherings behind it impedes full access to his property, the petition adds.
According to the petition, despite diligent efforts by the petitioner, he has not been able to identify the person or persons responsible for the encroachment. It adds, around December 20 last year, the petitioner, his advocate and a partner upon visiting his property noticed some pictures and murtis of gods erected by some unknown persons on a permanent structure made on the pavement around a tree next to a wall of his property, along with a large number of plants in large pots have been placed such that they create a corridor/pathway to the illegal temple from the main road.
“This encroachment and acts threaten to pose security threat not only for the petitioners, but also for the public at large,” the plea claimed.