Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner society invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ seeking quashing and setting aside of the order of demolition given for the Pracheen Shiv Mandir, situated near Taj Enclave, Geeta Colony. Dharmesh Sharma, J., dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner society has failed to demonstrate any legal rights existing with it to continue to use and occupy the civic property for running the temple services.
The Court stated that “However, the petitioner society is given 15 days time to remove the idols and other religious objects in the temple and to place the same in some other temple. If they fail to do so, the respondent DDA is directed to ensure that the idols are placed in some other temple, or as may be directed by the Religious Committee if they are approached for any suggestions.”
The case revolves around a legal dispute concerning the restoration and rejuvenation of the Yamuna River Flood Plains in India, prompted by concerns over the degradation of the floodplains due to encroachments and unauthorized constructions, raising alarms among environmentalists, concerned citizens, and governmental bodies alike.
In response to these concerns, the Division Bench of the Court referred to a recent judgment that outlined various directions for the restoration and rejuvenation of the floodplains. The petitioner society, registered in 2018, claimed rights to continue occupying and using the disputed land, primarily housing a temple. However, the Religious Affairs Committee’s report indicated the absence of historical proof of the temple’s significance and the lack of documentation regarding its public or private nature.
Legal arguments were presented, highlighting the distinction between public and private temples, citing relevant precedents and legal principles. However, the petitioner society failed to provide substantial evidence supporting its claim of ownership or public dedication of the temple.
The Court scrutinized the evidence presented, emphasizing the absence of documentation establishing the temple’s public significance. Precedents were cited to illustrate the criteria for determining public versus private temples, including factors like construction, worship practices, and financial management. The Court analysed the lack of concrete evidence supporting the petitioner’s claim of public dedication or significance of the temple, noting the absence of historical proof and documentation regarding its origin and management.
The Court remarked that “There is no document worth its salt on the record that the temple in question is dedicated to the public and not a private temple managed by the petitioner society. There is no documentary proof on the record as to how contributions are received from the public and how the accounts are maintained and how and in what manner the religious affairs of the present temple are managed. Mere fact that the prayers are offered at the temple every day and for that matter there are special events on certain festive occasions does not convert the temple in question to a place of public significance.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s claims due to the absence of legal rights or substantial evidence supporting their occupancy of the disputed land. The petitioner society was given a limited time to remove religious objects from the temple, with directions for their relocation. Furthermore, the Court granted permission for the demolition of unauthorized constructions, with instructions to ensure cooperation from the petitioner society and local authorities.
[Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4156, decided on 29-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Ms. Renu, Ms. Shivani Verma and Mr. Dipak Raj Singh, Advocates for petitioner
Mr.Arjun Pant, ASC for DDA with Ms.Latika Malhotra, Advocate with SI Satender Kumar Arya, PS Geeta Colony. Ms.Mehal Nakra, ASC (Civil) with Mr.Devansh Solanki and Ms.Aditi Kapoor, Advocates for R-2 to 6.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
