A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M Singh, in the case of Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority, while dismissing a suit filed by a temple manager seeking permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from forcefully dispossessing him from 4 temple properties built on public land, has observed that a trend could be seen of public land being “sought to be encroached upon under the shelter of a place of worship.
Brief Facts of the matter
The present petition arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff- Mr. Bal Bhagwan against the DDA seeking permanent injunction restraining the DDA from demolishing or forcibly dispossessing the Plaintiff from three temple situated on private land (the suit property).
The plaintiff moved an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC before the Civil Judge and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.02. 2019.
The Supreme Court, at the time of admission of the present petition, issued notice and directed that no coercive steps be taken by the DDA against the Plaintiff.
Case of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff claimed that he is the Chela of Late Swami Onkara Nand who was managing/running four temples situated on the suit property and that the said four temples were Plaintiff’s possession as they are managed by him and they have been running at least since the 1960s.
It was further submitted that Swami Onkara Nand expired in May, 1982 and by way of a registered Will dated 13th April, 1982, the Plaintiff was made the manager of the entire temple complex. It is claimed that the DDA attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property and dispossess the Plaintiff, leading to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction.
Case of the DDA
The DDA claimed that the entire land is government land and that the Plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the same. DDA cannot be prevented from taking over the land which is meant for rehabilitation of the Kathputli Colony dwellers and had been vested in the DDA by the Ministry of Rehabilitation way back in 1982. Both Courts have agreed with the DDA and have dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for interim injunction.
It was also contended that: the petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is not an appellate remedy. The scope of judicial review is limited in such a petition. The Court is not to act as an appellate authority and neither is such a petition to be treated as a second appeal. The Court cannot interfere unless there is flagrant miscarriage of justice or abuse of principles of law.
The Trial Court’s finding has to be perverse or patently erroneous for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in such a petition. The Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also cannot reverse the finding on insufficiency of evidence. The Court also cannot substitute the trial court’s finding with its own opinion in the matter. It is further submitted that if there are two concurrent findings, the power under Article 227 ought to be sparingly exercised.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court observed that: A perusal of the plaint showed that the Plaintiff claimed ownership in the suit property and in the plaint it was admitted that the land was government land and that the Plaintiff had rights in the same by way of adverse possession.
Pointing out a contradiction between the case as laid down in the plaint and as presented before the Court (with respect to the above- mentioned), the Court observed that:
“However, before this Court the Plaintiff’s case has changed and is-- one of settled possession and not of adverse possession. The issue, therefore, is very short - Whether the Plaintiff claiming settled possession without any ownership can be dispossessed or is entitled to injunction against dispossession?”
After having considered the Trial Court conclusion, the Court went on to discuss the extent of its jurisdiction u/a 226 of Indian constitution:
“The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, which was heard by the ld. ASCJ. The Appellate Court, vide its order dated 27th February, 2019, held that the land belongs to the DDA and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for injunction.”
(...) The petition before this Court is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Clearly, the extent of intervention in such cases is quite limited. There are concurrent findings by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. All the relevant facts have been considered by the Courts below. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, no interference would ordinarily be called for in the writ petition.”
The main question: whether the Plaintiff, who is in settled possession, can be dispossessed in an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC- was answered in affirmative, by the Court.
It was further observed that:
“Insofar as the Shamlat Deh land is concerned, the Plaintiff cannot claim any rights in the same as the same vests for the common interest of the villagers. This Court agrees with the stand of the DDA that the land has been urbanised and once urbanization takes place, the village owners have no rights.”
(...) though the land in question was vested in the DDA several years ago, the DDA is yet to obtain possession of the land. An important developmental project has been derailed because of the present litigation as the DDA continues to make valiant attempts to obtain possession in accordance with law. The mandir constitutes a miniscule portion of the entire land which has various commercial shops and residences.
Clearly, the Plaintiff, or anyone occupying or claiming rights through the Plaintiff, does not have any right to continue to remain in possession of the suit property. Ld. counsel for the DDA has submitted that an alternative accommodation has been given to the dwellers in the colony. It is for the DDA to ensure that the same is provided to everyone in occupation, in accordance with its policy.”
Deprecating the unscrupulous practice of turning a land, under the garb of a place of worship, into a completely unplanned encroachment, the Court observed:
“Finally, this Court expresses grave concern over the fact that public land is sought to be encroached upon under the shelter of a place of worship. As is seen in a large number of cases, rights are claimed by parties under the garb of temples or other places of worship located on government land. This trend has been repeatedly frowned upon by the Supreme Court and other courts. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in Union of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 62 has, in fact, taken cognizance of this menace and directed State Governments and Union Territories to review the situation and take appropriate action in an expeditious manner. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:
“Such attempts by unscrupulous parties ought to be discouraged, inasmuch as the occupants, under the garb of a place of worship, turn the land into a completely unplanned encroachment by hundreds of people. The authorities have an obligation to ensure that in public land, places of worship are not created in this manner. Moreover, in the present case, an infrastructure project is being completely crippled due to the pendency of this litigation. This would be contrary to even public interest.”
Held
“The land, being public land, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited by the Plaintiff with the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society. All pending applications are also disposed of.”
Case Details:
Name: Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M Singh
Date of Decision: 18.12.2020
Picture Source :