Unauthorized occupation of religious premises is illegal; the Court mandates removal to ensure redevelopement for public safety.

Headnote:(A) Supreme Court Judgments - Union of India v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 62; Harbhajan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3674/2009, decided on 4th December 2019); Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority, (CM(M) 416/2019, decided on 18th December 2020) - Unauthorized occupation of religious institution premises - Court emphasized the need for removal of unauthorized occupants and constructions, reaffirming that illegal encroachments compromise safety and access for devotees. (Paras 94-102)

(B) Eviction proceedings - The Court directed culmination of measures to remove unauthorized occupants by set deadlines, highlighting the need for alternative accommodation for the displaced. The action is framed in interests of public safety during ongoing redevelopment. (Paras 6, 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The case involves encroachments on the Kalkaji Mandir premises, where illegal occupants, including jhuggi dwellers and shopkeepers, have resisted eviction despite previous court orders. The Court found that the encroachments obstructed movement and access for devotees, necessitating urgent action.

Findings of Court:
The Court mandated the removal of unauthorized occupants and highlighted the requirement for DDA, DUSIB, and SDMC to assist in these actions, ensuring safety for devotees and the temple environment.

Issues: The primary issues included the legality of unauthorized occupations, the need for redevelopment of the temple site, and the provisions for alternative housing for those displaced.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that unauthorized occupants cannot remain without valid leases, emphasizing the religious institution's need to prioritize public access and safety for the devotees during the redevelopment.

Result: Directions issued for the removal of unauthorized occupants and mandatory surveys for redevelopement.

Table of Content
1. unauthorized occupation of religious premises must be vacated. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. provision of alternative accommodation for evicted jhuggi dwellers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 19)
3. public interest considerations in mandir redevelopment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. redevelopment process involves temporary facilities for shopkeepers. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are part heard matters.

FAO 36/2021 & CM APPLs.2914/2021, 10442/2021, 10444/2021, 20904/2021, 23819/2021, 25868/2021, 25869/2021, 25870/2021, 25884/2021, 26495/2021, 29121/2021, 25885/2021, 43944-46/2021, 3172/2022, 3455/2022, 5641/2022, 5642/2022, 38063/2021, 38289/2021, 39643/2021, 5803/2022, 5865/2022, 7745-46/2022

3. Pursuant to the previous order dated 2nd March, 2022, Mr. Manish Gupta, Vice Chairman, DDA, Ms. Garima Gupta, CEO, DUSIB, Ms. Esha Pandey, DCP, South East Delhi, and Mr. Gyanesh Bharti, Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation have all joined the proceedings.

4. The redevelopment of the Kalkaji Mandir premises is to take place, however this Court's interaction with the ld. Administrator as also the Architect and the other assisting counsels to the ld. Administrator, has revealed that certain jhuggi dwellers and some Dharamshala occupants have not yet vacated the premises.

5. Vide previous orders of this Court dated 27th September, 2021, 7th December, 2021, 9th December, 2021 and 24th December, 2021, it was made amply clear that none of the occupants who are in illegal occupation of the Mandir premises can remain in possession.

6. The relevant extract of the order dated 27th September, 2021 is as under:

"94. The Supreme Court has time and again held that no unauthorized constructions or encroachments shall take place in the name of religious places. In Union of India v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 14 SCC 62, has taken cognizance of this menace and directed State Governments and Union Territories to take appropriate action in an expeditious manner. The Supreme Court held: "As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In respect of the unauthorized construction of religious nature which has already taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible."

95. Recently, in Harbhajan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3674/2009, decided on 4th December 2019), the Supreme Court was dealing with tenants who were in occupation of shops located in Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. There were no formal tenancy agreements in favour of the tenants. The Religious Premises Act, 1998, dealing with eviction of unauthorized occupants from premises belonging to religious institutions, provided for a summary procedure for evicting unauthorised occupants from premises belonging to religious institutions. The legality of the said provision was challenged on the ground that there was no intelligible differentia between `normal tenants' who were protected tenants and tenants of religious institutions. In this context, the Supreme Court affirmed the position that unauthorised occupants of the premises of a religious institution would form a separate class. The finding of the Division Bench of the High Court, which held that the public at large has an inherent interest in the "religious institutions" which were prone to maladministration and mismanagement, was upheld. It also observed that any person who is in occupation of the premises belonging to a religious institution without a valid allotment, lease or grant is to be treated as an "unauthorised occupant". The Supreme Court held that:

"As noticed above, valid grants, leases and allotments are no