Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam (‘appellant’) against the impugned judgement, whereby the Single Judge ordered the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’), the respondent, to remove idols and encroachments from the Yamuna Bank, the Division Bench of Manmohan*, ACJ. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., dismissed the appeal and observed that the construction of temple over the land was unauthorized and the DDA had proper authority to remove any such unauthorized construction or structures.
Background
The appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 claimed to have been established by a distinguished priest, known for founding 101 Shiv Lingas, and the temple on the site stands on one of such Shiv Lingas. The appellant contended that it was a central hub for spiritual community activities and drew around 300 to 400 devotees regularly.
The appellant submitted that the SHO of Police Station-Geeta Colony visited the temple and informed the appellant’s society of the intended demolition of the temple on 25-09-2023. It was further submitted that no formal notice had been given to the appellant.
The appellant submitted a formal representation to the Commissioner of Police and Lt. Governor of Delhi, requesting immediate intervention to stop the intended demolition of the temple. However, apprehending that the demolition would not be halted, the appellant filed a writ before the Court, whereby an interim order was passed by the Single Judge restraining the demolition and directed that no coercive steps against the appellant be taken.
The interim order continued till the impugned judgment was passed on 29-05-2024, wherein the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, granting the appellant 15 days’ time to remove idols and other religious objects. The DDA was granted authority to demolish the temple, which was an unauthorized construction.
The appellant contended that the demolition was carried out without notice, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was further argued by appellant that the Religious Committee convened to deliberate upon the case, however, without granting appellant an opportunity of hearing, recommended the demolition of the temple. Hence, the decision of the Committee would stand vitiated.
The appellant further submitted that the land where the temple was situated did not belong to the DDA but to the State of Uttar Pradesh, and any action was to be taken by an authority under the State of Uttar Pradesh.
DDA contended that the instant appeal would stand infructuous as the temple had already been demolished and further said that the appellant had failed to furnish any documentary proof regarding ownership of the land on which the temple was built. It was further submitted by DDA that the temple being an unauthorized structure, the DDA was under an obligation to remove such unauthorised structure and that even the Religious Committee had recommended removal of unauthorized structures on the Yamuna floodplain.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing both parties, the Court noted that the appellant admitted that there was no document that would show its ownership over the land where the temple was built, nor did the appellant dispute the fact the temple was on a site which was located within the Restoration and Rejuvenation of Yamuna River Floodplain Asita, East U.P. land from ITO Barrage to old Iron Railway Bridge. The Court said it was apparent that the temple had been constructed without authorization on encroached land in an eco-sensitive zone area. If that was so, no structure, religious or otherwise, could be permitted to stand and must be necessarily removed.
The Court said that the Yamuna floodplains had to be zealously protected from such encroachment and unauthorized constructions and referred to Yamuna Khadar Slum Union v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4634, Shabnam Burney v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4707 wherein the Court had reiterated the same principles.
The Court noted that as per the impugned judgment, the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) with respect to the subject land, had been executed between the State of Uttar Pradesh and DDA, and even as per the MoU, the DDA had been tasked with removal of encroachments from the land.
The Court observed that the construction of the land was not only unauthorized, but the DDA had proper authority to remove any unauthorized construction or pre-existing structures.
The Court rejected the argument of the appellant that principles of natural justice had been violated by the Religious Committee, the Court remarked, “there is not even a single scrap of a document placed on record by the appellant/society to show any kind of legitimacy it exercises, either over the land or the illegal structure built thereon. Thus, this argument is noted only to be rejected”.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit, while observing that the entire structure already stood demolished and hence, nothing survived for consideration.
[Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4845, decided on 10-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Appellant: Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Many Mishra, Renu, Deepak Raj Singh, Advocates
Advocates for Respondent: Shobhana Takiar, Mehak Nakra, Umang Aditya, Devansh Solanki, Advocates
