Delhi HC junks plea against demolition of Shiv Mandir
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a “regular worshipper” seeking injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to prevent the demolition of a Shiv Mandir in Delhi’s Kondli Sabji Mandi.
The appellant, a local resident and worshipper, contended that the DDA intended to demolish the Shiv Temple and the land in question was donated in 1969 by local people.
In March last year, a trial court had dismissed the appellant's suit for permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages against the DDA and SHO of Gazipur Police Station.
It rejected the claim of land donation on ground of lack of documentary evidence, both regarding the donation as well as the original ownership of the purported donor.
It further concluded that in cases involving illegal constructions on public land, a worshipper cannot independently file for injunction against government authorities seeking to demolish such structures.
However, the Delhi High Court, in May 2023, passed an interim injunction putting the impugned decision in abeyance, which continued during the pendency of the appeal.
In the course of hearing, the DDA contended that the land in question is a government property and was transferred to the horticulture division for development as a green park.
It added that suit land, being government property, gave the appellant no right, title, or interest and he is neither a priest nor part of the temple committee.
The Delhi High Court, in its final judgment, said that though, it is settled law that the right to worship is a civil right but the appellant has not claimed that he is being stopped or obstructed from worshipping in any legitimate temple in any manner.
Dismissing the worshipper's plea, it said, “The Shiv Temple/the suit land is concededly in a public park which is owned by the DDA. Admittedly, the Appellant has no right or title in the suit land. The DDA has undertaken the exercise of removing unlawful encroachment on government property and this Court finds no reason to interdict the same.”