Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition Of Shiv Temple Near Yamuna Flood Plains, Says Eco-Sensitive Zone Must Be Protected From Encroachment
The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench concerning the demolition order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a Shiv Temple located near Yamuna Flood Plains. The court asserted that as the Yamuna River Floodplain is an eco-sensitive zone, it needs to be protected from encroachments and illegal constructions.The appellant, Prachin Shiv Mandir, filed...
The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench concerning the demolition order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a Shiv Temple located near Yamuna Flood Plains. The court asserted that as the Yamuna River Floodplain is an eco-sensitive zone, it needs to be protected from encroachments and illegal constructions.
The appellant, Prachin Shiv Mandir, filed a Letter Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge Bench that rejected its plea against the demolition of the temple by DDA.
The appellant-society contended they were not provided any prior notice before the demolition was sought to be carried out, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They also contended that the temple is located on land belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh, not under the jurisdiction of the DDA. Therefore, they claimed DDA lacked authority to carry out any demolition. As the temple was already demolished, the Society contended that the demolition action was void ab initio.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the Society did not produce any documents to prove their ownership over the land. The Society also did not dispute that the temple was built on a land located within the Restoration and Rejuvenation of Yamuna River Floodplain.
The Court remarked that the temple was constructed without any authorization and that it was built on an encroached land in an eco-sensitive area. It stated “… no structure, religious or otherwise, can be permitted to stand and have to be necessarily removed. More so, the Yamuna River Floodplain has to be zealously protected from such encroachment and unauthorized constructions…”
Regarding the contention that the land belonged to State of UP and not under DDA's jurisdiction, the Court noted that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the State of U.P. and DDA. According to this MoU, the DDA was authorized to remove any encroachments on the land. Therefore, the Court held that the DDA had the rightful authority to demolish any unauthorized constructions.
It noted that the Society could not claim any violation of principles of natural justice because the temple was built illegally, on a public land and the Society lacked any authority either over the land or the temple.
“So far as the argument regarding violation of principles of natural justice by the Religious Committee is concerned, suffice it to state that a rank encroacher on public land carrying out unauthorized construction cannot make a grievance of the same. 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” it observed.
The Court thus dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Pracheen Shiv Mandir Avam Akhada Samiti vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 806