The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed a PIL seeking to remove encroachment from temple premises in Village Ghinhagaon, P.S. Barganvan, Tehsil Devsar, District Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner, Prakash Narayan Pandey, has also prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated February 25, 2020 passed by Collector Singrauli that there cannot be an order for removal of encroachment of the temple or its surrounding land.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the action whereby the Collector has refused to remove the encroachment of the private respondents from temple premises.

According to the petitioner, he is the complainant in the present case and he has filed a complaint before the respondent regarding encroachment by private respondents in the government land, but after passing the order, the respondent has failed to exercise its jurisdiction/power to remove the encroachment. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to the concerned authorities but with no result.

The petitioner has filed a PIL in 2017 before the High  Court, which was disposed of by order dated 22.08.2017 with liberty to the petitioner to seek other remedy as is available to him under the law. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached the Tehsildar  and thereafter, the Collector Singrauli has removed the encroachment from government land, but refused to remove encroachment from the temple premises, since the Tehsildar has passed the order which was set aside by the Collector Singrauli.

Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, has pointed out that the order was passed by the Tehsildar for removing the encroachment of the Temple premises. However, against the said order an appeal was preferred before the S.D.O. Devsar, District Singrauli. By order dated 13.01.2016, the S.D.O., Devsar has passed the order for removing the encroachment except the land of the temple.

Against the said order an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division- Rewa, which was also dismissed. The said order was further challenged before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior but the same also faced dismissal. Against the order of the Board of Revenue, a writ petition was filed in 2017 , which was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2018. The petitioner further preferred a Petition  which was disposed of, vide order dated 22.08.2017 to carry out the order regarding removal of encroachment. Thus, all the authorities had directed for removal of the encroachment except the temple and its premises.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed that by the impugned order, the Collector, District Singrauli has mentioned that for safety of the temple, the boundary-wall has been constructed, which is essential for the safety of the temple. Further, a tin shed has been constructed in which the pujari of the temple is residing. “Thus, the Collector Singrauli had passed the order that there cannot be an order for removal of encroachment of the Temple or its surrounding land,” the Bench held.

“Since, all the authorities have held that the encroachment has now been removed except temple, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Collector Singrauli, warranting any interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs,” the order reads.

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to place on record the order dated February 18, 1991 whereby a religious committee was directed to be constituted in a plea seeking direction to the Delhi Government to remove an encroachment in front of the petitioner’s property in Defence Colony.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Palli has given the direction in order to appreciate, whether this matter was required to be placed before the religious committee. The Delhi Government had submitted a status report stating that the demolition drive by PWD has not happened and that the said structure has been referred to a 4-member religious committee for approval of demolition. 

The Court had previously directed the DCP (South), Hauz Khas to render necessary assistance to the Delhi Government in carrying out a demolition drive at Defence Colony, proposed to be carried out on October 4. Senior Advocate P.V. Kapur,  appearing on behalf of the petitioner displayed photos of the said encroachment and submitted that the intent of referral to the religious committee cannot be to permit the unauthorised encroachment.

The matter was listed for further hearing on October 26. According to the petitioner, during the Covid-19 pandemic, an unknown person trespassed and illegally constructed a temple on the footpath in front of his property. He further stated that people gather there and indulge in “rowdiness and gambling and suspected drinking of alcohol and consuming illegal substances”.

The petition relied on the Supreme Court verdict in Union of India vs State of Gujarat [(2011) 14 SCC 62] and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority, where the courts held that no encroachments should be permitted in the name of place of worship.

The petition further averred that in the guise of the ongoing pandemic, the encroachment may expand to adjoining spaces. The illegal structure and the gatherings behind it impedes full access to his property, the petition adds.

According to the petition, despite diligent efforts by the petitioner, he has not been able to identify the person or persons responsible for the encroachment. It adds, around December 20 last year, the petitioner, his advocate and a partner upon visiting his property noticed some pictures and murtis of gods erected by some unknown persons on a permanent structure made on the pavement around a tree next to a wall of his property, along with a large number of plants in large pots have been placed such that they create a corridor/pathway to the illegal temple from the main road.

“This encroachment and acts threaten to pose security threat not only for the petitioners, but also for the public at large,” the plea claimed.