The Delhi High Court has ordered that authorities like the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) are obligated to ensure that places of worship are not created on public land by unscrupulous persons through encroachment.
A single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Bal Bhagwan.
The petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the DDA seeking permanent injunction restraining the DDA from demolishing or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from three temple premises, namely Mandir Kali Mai, Mandir Bada Beer Dham and Mandir Shivji Maharaj, situated on private land bearing measuring 4 bigha 3 biswas and a temple premises of Sankat Mochan Bajrang Bali on land measuring 2 bigha 11 biswas of village Khampura Raya, Delhi bearing Swami Onkara Nand Ashram, New Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
While citing the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 62 in which the Court has, taken cognizance of this menace and directed state governments and union territories to review the situation and take appropriate action in an expeditious manner.
“In respect of the unauthorised construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case-to-case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” the Court stated.
The bench elaborated in the judgment that,
“Such attempts by unscrupulous parties ought to be discouraged, inasmuch as the occupants, under the garb of a place of worship, turn the land into a completely unplanned encroachment by hundreds of people. The authorities have an obligation to ensure that in public land, places of worship are not created in this manner.”
In the present case, the land in question was located in the heart of Delhi, and pictures put on record by the DDA, the court noted that, “The mandir constitutes a miniscule portion of the entire land which has various commercial shops and residences.”
The fact of the case was that manager had been shown to be in settled possession on the basis of the jamabandis, khasra girdwaries and the DDA’s own plan, therefore his possession could not be disturbed except in accordance with law.
Since the temple was already in existence and the manager/his predecessor was managing the said temple, the DDA was well aware of the risk of taking over the said land.
Advocate Rajiv Bansal, appearing for the DDA, submitted that being filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the plea was not an appellate remedy and the court could not interfere with the lower court’s order unless there is “flagrant miscarriage of justice or abuse of the principles of law”. It further submitted that none of the documents placed on record by the manager proved his title over the land.
Bansal pleaded that the land was in fact being used for commercial purposes and not for the purpose of mandirs as, on both the parcels of lands of the suit, which were more than one and a half acres i.e. 6,700 sq. yards, the four mandirs are in a very small portion and the remaining portion consisted of a residence, shops and factories.
On the aspect of the DDA having taken over the land on ‘as is where is’ basis, Bansal submitted that this only meant that the Government of India was not giving any guarantees or warrantys in respect of the land.
The transfer of property to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/North Delhi Municipal Corporation was for the purposes of providing municipal amenities and facilities in the area concerned. He argued further that khasra girdhawaris and other revenue records do not confer any title.
Also Read: Delhi HC directs website to remove article against Amul milk, milk products
The Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the manager, giving strict observations regarding encroachment of public properties in the garb of places of worship while ruling in favour of DDA.
PMS18122020CMM4162019_153646