Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed an appeal filed by a worshipper seeking a permanent injunction against DDA to prevent the demolition of a Shiv Mandir located in Kondli Sabji Mandi. The court remarked that while the “Right to worship is a civil right and cannot be taken away", the said plea did not seek the protection of this right. 

The bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju noted that the worshipper had not filed a suit contending his right to worship was hindered. Rather the worshipper sought “to enforce a nonexisting right in an immovable property/temple which is constructed illegally, as well as a boundary wall which has been constructed around that temple”.  

A worshipper, through Advocates Aditya Raj and Anju Agarwal, alleged that the DDA intended to demolish the temple, which was built on donated land. The worshipper also claimed that illegal activities, including gambling and alcohol consumption, occurred near the temple, but no action was taken despite complaints. The worshipper sought damages of Rs. 3,05,000.

Advocate Aditya Raj argued that the worshipper’s locus standi in the case stemmed from his status as a devotee of the Shiv Temple, a right he claimed had existed since 1969. It was asserted that the right was based on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Since the temple had been in existence for over 60 years, it was argued that demolishing the temple would violate his Right to Worship.

The DDA, represented by Standing Counsel Shobhna Takiar, argued that the land was government property with the temple being an unauthorized construction. It was contended that the land in question was government property, acquired under an award in 1978-79 and designated for park development. It was claimed that the worshipper had illegally constructed a boundary wall in 2017, leading to complaints and demolition attempts, which were delayed due to the unavailability of police forces. 

The trial court dismissed the worshipper’s application, citing insufficient evidence of the land donation and lack of personal interest in the property. The trial court also noted that the worshipper, neither a priest nor temple management member, lacked standing to claim damages. The trial court differentiated between the civil right to worship and the right to seek an injunction regarding immovable property, emphasizing that such claims required a personal interest in the property.

The trial court first noted that the claim that the land was donated was not substantiated by any documentary evidence regarding the donation or the donor.  The trial court also observed that the worshipper did not make the temple priest a plaintiff in the suit, and was also unable to establish his own locus standii. 

The high court favored the trial court’s stance noting that the suit was filed to claim ownership and not the right to worship. The high court noted that the suit sought a permanent injunction to prevent the demolition of the temple and to halt illegal gambling and intoxication.

The high court held that since the worshipper lacked an independent right over the disputed land. The worshipper claimed his right to worship as a civil right. However, the high court found that this suit did not involve obstruction to legitimate worship and was instead an attempt to enforce a non-existent right over illegal temple structures.

"What is being sought to be done by the Appellant is to enforce a nonexisting right in an immovable property/temple which is constructed illegally, as well as a boundary wall which has been constructed around that temple. Thus, the civil right to worship of the Appellant is not being interdicted by any person or authority", the court added. 

Additionally, the high court referred to a Supreme Court ruling that injunctions cannot be granted to those without a personal interest, and a trespasser cannot seek an injunction against the rightful owner. 

The high court concluded that the temple stood on public land unlawfully occupied by the worshippers, and the DDA’s action to remove the encroachment was justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and interim protection previously granted to the worshipper was vacated.

Case Title: Avinesh Kumar Delhi Development Authority And Anr. (2024:DHC:7681)