Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant Who Made 'Lord Hanuman' Party To Private Temple Property Dispute

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on a man who made “Lord Hanuman” a party objector (appellant) to an appeal concerning the dispute of a temple constructed on a private land and claiming the right to worship therein.

“I never thought that God would, one day, be a litigant before me. This appears, however, thankfully, to be a case of Divinity By Proxy,” remarked Justice C Hari Shankar.

The court dismissed in limine the appeal of Ankit Mishra and directed him to pay the costs to Suraj Malik, to whom the property belonged.

“In order to avoid Appellant 1 Ankit Mishra now advancing the contention that the costs had to be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is clarified that the costs would be entirely payable by him- with a small “h”,” the court clarified.

Mishra challenged an order passed by the ADJ dismissing the objection petition filed by him and other individuals, observing that appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property.

The objection petition said that Lord Hanuman, Bhagwan Shiv ji, Shree Ram Darbar, Devi Durga Mata ji, Bhagwan Kishanji and other visible and invisible deities existed and worshipped by Hindu Devotees continuously by performing puja and other rituals within the temple premises.

It was claimed that a decree, passed in 2022 in favour of Malik pursuant to a settlement agreement concerning the suit property, was an attempt to impose restrictions on Mishra to interfere with his right to offer prayers, perform rituals of Deities at the said Temple.

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Shankar observed that if a person constructs a temple on his private property, essentially meant for himself and his family, there is no proscription on his allowing members of the public to offer prayers at the temple on festive occasions.

However, the court added, that to say that the public worship at a private temple, even with free access, does not ipso facto indicate that it is a public temple.

“Neither does the land on which a private temple is constructed vest in the deity, merely because the public are allowed to worship there. What is of essence is the purpose for which the temple was constructed and dedicated to the deity consecrated in it, and the purpose for which the temple has been thrown open to the public,” the court said.

It added that the onus to establish that the temple, though initially privately constructed, acquires public character with the passage of time, is all the persons who asserting.

“It is an admitted position that the land on which the temple was constructed is private land, presently belonging to Respondent 5 Suraj Malik. How the temple came to be constructed is not averred in the objection petition. Though there is an averment that the temple was constructed in 1997, even that is unsupported by evidence. When the temple was constructed is, therefore, a matter of pure conjecture,” the court said.

It added: “Mere worship, by the public, at the private temple, does not convert it into a public temple. The averments in the objection petition, therefore, do not even make out a prima facie case of the disputed temple, in the present case, being a public temple.”

Justice Shankar concluded that there was nothing to indicate, even prima facie, that the temple was a public temple and that Mishra's submission that he was entitled to defend Lord Hanuman as his next friend did not survive for consideration.

“There is no concept, in the law, of the right to worship vesting in the public at a private temple, unless the owner of the temple makes such a right available or, with the passage of time and in compliance with the indicia identified by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, the private temple has metamorphosed into a public temple,” the court said.

Title: ANKIT MISHRA & ANR. v. SANTOSH SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 555

Click here to read order