Worshipper Cannot Claim Injunction To Stop Temple Demolition On Govt Land Without Demonstrating Any Personal Interest: Delhi High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju was considering the appellant's challenge to the Trial Court's order, which dismissed his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction along with damages against the DDA.

The appellant claimed to be a local resident and worshipper at a Shiv Temple located in a park. He claimed that the land was donated by local people in 1969. He filed a suit alleging that the DDA intended to demolish the temple, built on the suit land and prayed for and mandatory injunction and damages of around Rs. 3 lakh against the DDA.

The Court referred to Section 91 of CPC, as the nature of relief sought by the appellant fell under the purview of public nuisance or wrongful acts affecting the public.

As per Section 91 CPC, the suit for declaration or injunction in the cases of public nuisance or wrongful acts affecting the public can be instituted by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court by two or more persons, even if no special damage has been caused to such persons.

Here, the Court noted that the suit was filed not by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons. As the appellant was the lone plaintiff in the suit, the Court stated Section 91 CPC was not adhered to.

The Court observed that the appellant was not claiming any ownership over the suit land and did not dispute that the land belongs to DDA. It noted that the plaint was filed by the appellant as a 'worshipper of a temple'.

It thus noted that as the appellant did not have any independent right to sue with respect to the suit land, even Section 91(2) would not apply to the present case.

The Court further observed that even though the right to worship is a civil right and can be the subject matter of a suit, the present case is not such a suit.

“The Appellant has not claimed that he is being stopped or obstructed from worshipping in any legitimate temple in any manner… What is being sought to be done by the Appellant is to enforce a non-existing 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 also referred to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits granting an injunction in cases where there is no personal interest involved.

Here, the Court noted that the Shiv Temple is in a public park owned by the DDA and that the records reveal that the appellant and other residents of the area have unauthorisedly occupied and constructed a boundary wall to claim title or exclusive possession to the suit land. It remarked “In the garb of a suit for injunction, the Appellant has succeeded in restraining the demolition of an unauthorised construction in a public park for the last several years. This cannot be countenanced by the Court.”

The Court held that the appellant did not have a right or title over the suit land and thus could not claim an injunction against the DDA.

“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.”

Case title: Avinesh Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1115