The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancient religious institutions and unauthorized recent constructions, and the application of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, to determine the legality of such structures.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Das, J. - In these writ petitions, the notices of eviction issued against Pasupatinath and Ganesh Temple, Bije at Ganeshghat, as well as against Maa Dakhinakali Temple, Bije at Ganeshghat and Lord Radhe Krishna Temple located at Belly View in village-Subarnapur under Cuttack Sadar Tahasil, in the proceedings initiated under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 are under challenge. The action taken by the authorities of the State for demolition of the said temples and other unauthorized religious structures is on the allegation that such structures have been constructed unauthorisedly on public lands and on the lands reserved for park, community center and other public purposes in Cuttack City and within the areas of Bidanasi Housing Project and Sikharpur Housing Scheme of the Cuttack-Development Authority (CDA). In all the aforesaid four writ petitions the common question which arises for determination is as to whether the unauthorized religious structures like Temple, Gurudwara, Mosque, Church, etc. can be allowed to continue over public street/public land. Therefore, all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts leading to these writ petitions are as follows:

Cuttack was a very old and small city. It has completed 1000 years and, therefore, it is called as a Millennium City. Off late, within 10-15 years, there are mushroom growth of construction of religious institutions on public roads/public places unauthorizedly making encroachments on public lands as well as the lands along side the river banks of Mahanadi and Kathajodi and the lands belonging to the CDA in the Bidanasi Housing Project area and Sikharpur Housing Project Area, which were kept reserved for community centers, parks and open space. Such lands have been forcibly taken over by certain persons and temples and cluster of temples have been constructed thereon. When eviction proceedings were initiated and demolition orders were issued, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

3. The issue relating to demolition of religious institutions on the Ring Road and on the embankment of river Kathajodi being a sensitive issue and looking into the far-reaching implications and consequences of the orders of demolition, apart from hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, we have also heard the learned senior members of the Bar like Mr. B.B. Ratho and Mr. K.N. Jena. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners were of the view that the temples should not be demolished as some of the temples are very old and others like Radhe Krishna Temple of Shyama Shyama Satsang though has been constructed very recently, the same has made massive construction by spending a huge money.

4. Mr. Ratho appearing as Amicus Curiae submitted that Ring Road is of recent origin and its construction was started in the early part of 1983 and was almost over by 1985. The temples, which were there on the side of both the rivers Mahanadi and Kathajodi, particularly the old temples, did not pose any serious problem so far as traffic was concerned but for the development of the Ring Road. It was further submitted that Cuttack City is a cosmopolitan city, and multi-lingual, multi-religious people are living in the city in harmony. The city has got several old temples, mosques, churches. Pir Stans, Gurudwaras and Jain Temples. At the same time those temples which have come up in recent past should not stand on the way of development of the city and/or create/cause public inconvenience. The sum and substance of the argument of Mr. Ratho is that the temples, which are within tolerable limit, should not be demolished.

Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in O.J.C. No. 7556 of 2005, submitted that there should not be any public nuisance in the place of worship and there can not be any doubt that no temple causing obstruction on public road or creating public nuisance should be allowed to rema