Delhi High Court
Nirdhan Thatha Dalit Varg Lok ... vs Municipal Corp. Of Delhi And ... on 30 August, 2001
Author: M Sain
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sain, J.
1. Nirdhan Thatha Dalit Varg Lok Kalyan Samaj (Regd.) Petitioner in the writ petition No.7725/2000, claims to be a registered Association carrying on social work by serving poor, scheduled castes and schedules tribes. Petitioner claims that several members of its association are worshippers of Lord Buddha and come daily at Buddha Temple Bagh Diwar, Fatehpuri.
2. Budhist Society of India (Regd.) Petitioner in CW.No.4899/2001, claims to be a Society engaged in promoting the ideology and holy sayings of Lord Buddha. It claims to be controlling several Buddha temples and is the only society, which has the legal right to represent worshippers of Lord Buddha.
3. Both these writ petitions have been filed seeking writ of prohibition to restrain on MCD into a scooter parking. As the relief sought in both the writ petition is common, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal together. Counter affidavit has been filed in CW.No.7725/2000 by respondent/MCD.
4. The case of the petitioners in seeking a restraint against a scooter parking being constructed is based on the following:-
Petitioners' claim that the statue of Lord Buddha was founded and established in the year 1960 on the eve of 2500 birthday of Lord Buddha, at the site. It is claimed that the worshippers and followers of Lord Buddha have been offering prayers at the site. It is claimed that earlier attempts to encroach upon and grab the land of Pooja Sthali, were successfully resisted by the followers of Lord Buddha, who staged on a Dharna and went on fast. It is submitted that making of a scooter parking would cause hindrance and disturbance to the devotees in their meditation and worship. Besides, it is urged that there are already two car parkings and the proposed scooter parking would cause noise and pollution. Lastly, it is urged that the area in question, as per the Master Plan, is green. Hence, it could not be converted into a parking.
5. Respondent/MCD in its counter affidavit filed in CW.No.7725/2000, has averred that the statue of Lord Buddha has been placed on public land and not the land allotted or belonging to the petitioners. The photographs filed on record show that there is no Buddha Temple as such but it is only a statue that has been placed. Further, respondent/MCD has not threatened to take any action for removal of the statue. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the area near Fatch Puri is highly commercialised and there is a growing demand for parking of vehicles and the parking space has been found to be wholly inadequate. The place is in the vicinity of Old Delhi Railway Station and there is dire need of providing car/scooter parking in Fateh Puri/Old Dehi. MCD claims that by providing a scooter parking, it would only be removing existing encroachments on public land. Learned counsel submits that provisions of scooter parking does not displace or result in removal of the statue of Lord Buddha.
6. As regards objection of making scooter parking contrary to the user of the land, as shown in the Master Plan, it is clarified that the area falls under P-2, District Park. The Master Plan itself enables provision of parking, circulation and public utilities in all the user zones including District Park. There is merit in the submission. Moreover, petitioners themselves have statue of Lord Buddha what is claimed as Pooja Sthali in the District Park. The installation of Buddha statue or construction of any temple within the District Park on the same parity would violate the user as "green".
7. As regards the claim made by the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.4899/2001 that they are the real and genuine followers of Lord Buddha, who are entitled to pusue the case and no one else, this Court is not concerned with the inter se disputes between the so called genuine followers of Lord Buddha or others, who are labelled as mischievous persons and not genuine followers.
8. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for respondent/MCD that while making the scooter parking that MCD does not plan, as of now, to dis-lodge the statue of Lord Buddha, petitioners can have no grievance and nothing survives in the petition. Moreover, as discussed above, the Master Plan itself contemplates provision of public utility services, such as, parking, circulation and public utilities in all user Zone including District Park.
9. The writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed. The order passed in these writ petitions shall not be taken as conferring any legitimacy on any of the petitioners with regard to their claim of being followers of Lord Buddha or to have a temple of Lord Buddha at the site in question.
