Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified the legal standing of individuals seeking to prevent the demolition of structures deemed illegal on public property, specifically in the case concerning the unauthorized construction of a temple on land owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The case under review was titled **Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. (RFA 403/2023 & CM Appl.37124/2024)**, where the appellant, Avinesh Kumar, a self-identified worshipper and local resident, challenged the order of the Trial Court that dismissed his suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the DDA, along with damages amounting to ₹3 lakh.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant claimed that the temple, situated in a public park, had been built on land supposedly donated by local residents in 1969. He alleged that the DDA intended to demolish the temple and sought to protect it through legal means. However, the DDA’s position was clear: the land belonged to them, and the construction was unauthorized. The DDA’s legal representatives highlighted that the claim made by the appellant was not only unfounded but also contravened established legal principles governing public property.

Court’s Judgment:

The pivotal legal question hinged on the appellant’s standing to file the suit. During the proceedings, the High Court noted the significance of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs suits concerning public nuisance or wrongful acts affecting the public. The section stipulates that such suits can be initiated by the Advocate General or, with the court’s permission, by multiple persons even in the absence of special damages. The Court pointed out that the suit was filed by a lone plaintiff, without the involvement of the Advocate General or permission from the court, indicating a lack of adherence to procedural requirements under Section 91 CPC.

In assessing the appellant’s claims, the Court observed that he did not assert any ownership rights over the land in question. Instead, he merely identified as a “worshipper of a temple,” which led to the conclusion that he lacked the necessary legal standing to contest the DDA’s actions. The court emphasized that mere worship does not confer upon the appellant any independent right to challenge the demolition of an illegally constructed temple, especially when it was acknowledged that the land was public property under DDA’s jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the nature of the claim made by the appellant, noting that while the right to worship is recognized as a civil right, the situation at hand did not constitute an infringement of such rights. The judges emphasized that the appellant was not being obstructed from worshipping at any legitimate temple; instead, he was attempting to protect a structure that lacked legal authorization. The ruling clarified that seeking to enforce a non-existent right over an illegally constructed temple and surrounding boundary wall did not constitute a valid legal claim.

The Court also referenced Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which expressly prohibits the granting of injunctions in scenarios where the plaintiff does not possess a personal interest. The judges reasoned that the appellant’s attempt to seek an injunction against the DDA’s demolition of the temple was not tenable given the unauthorized nature of the construction. They reiterated that the Shiv Temple’s location in a public park, along with the unauthorized occupation of land and construction of boundary walls by the appellant and other local residents, pointed to a clear case of unlawful encroachment.

The judges remarked that the case was indicative of a broader issue regarding unauthorized constructions on public property. They stated, “In the garb of a suit for injunction, the Appellant has succeeded in restraining the demolition of an unauthorized construction in a public park for the last several years. This cannot be countenanced by the Court.” This statement encapsulates the Court’s firm stance against the misuse of legal remedies to protect illegal constructions, reinforcing the principle that public property must be safeguarded from encroachments.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appellant did not possess any right or title to the suit land and thus could not claim an injunction against the DDA. The judgment reiterated that the DDA was within its rights to undertake the removal of unlawful encroachments on government property. The Court asserted, “Admittedly, the Appellant has no right or title in the suit land. The Respondent/DDA has undertaken the exercise of removing unlawful encroachment on government property, and this Court finds no reason to interdict the same.” This definitive statement underscores the legal rationale behind the ruling, affirming the authority of public agencies to act against illegal constructions.

In essence, the Delhi High Court’s decision not only addresses the specific circumstances surrounding the unauthorized temple but also sets a critical precedent regarding the rights of worshippers and residents in similar situations. The ruling serves as a reminder that while the right to worship is fundamental, it cannot be leveraged to justify the illegal occupation of public lands or the protection of unauthorized structures.