Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 467
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. A. KHAN, SHAMBHOO SINGH
INDER KUMAR PANCHAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 1530 Of 1988
Decided On : 07/21/1999
B.A.CHITALE, M.M.ASUDANI, S.S.SAMWATSAR, V.K.DUBEY
The court held that the petitioners had not shown any evidence of their right to practice their religion in the demolished structure or that they were prevented from doing so in other places of worship.
Headnote:
TEMPLE DEMOLITION - PUBLIC LAND - ENCROACHMENT - NO RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT - NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE RELIGION - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, claiming to be members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and social workers, alleged that the "nav Durga Mata Temple" in Manish Bagh Colony, Indore, was illegally demolished by respondents, preventing them from practicing their religion and faith. They sought an inquiry against the respondents, reconstruction of the temple at government expense, and permission to construct the temple on their own.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed land was reserved for public utility and that Ishwarlal, who had constructed the temple, had encroached upon it. The court also found that the petitioners had not shown any evidence of their right to practice their religion in the demolished structure or that they were prevented from doing so in other places of worship.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were guilty of misuse of power and office in demolishing the temple. 2. Whether the government was obligated to reconstruct the temple or allow the petitioners to do so. 3. Whether the petitioners' fundamental right to practice their religion was infringed by the demolition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had not provided any evidence to show that the respondents were guilty of misuse of power and office. It also held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to order roving and random inquiries against government officials. 2. The court held that the petitioners had not shown that the temple was a public temple or that they were entitled to any compensation or reconstruction from public funds. It also held that it was not the court's province to grant permission to construct the temple or to direct the government to do so. 3. The court held that the petitioners had not shown that their right to practice their religion was infringed by the demolition. It noted that they had not alleged that they could only practice their religion in the demolished structure and that all other places of worship in the city were out of bounds for them.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim to be members of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Indore and social workers also. They claim that "nav Durga Mata Temple" situate at Manish Bagh Colony looked after by one Ishwarlal, was illegally and forcibly demolished by official respondents preventing them from exercising their fundamental right of practising religion and faith of their choice. It is alleged that this was done in violation of orders passed by this Court in Ishwarlal's writ petition No. 944/98 requiring them to take recourse to procedure established by law.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS claim that this temple existed on the land donated by Manish Bagh Co.-op. Housing Society's Ex-President as evidenced from Annexure P6 permitting Poojari Ishwarlal to raise/renovate the temple. The demolition incident was also witnessed by one sitting M. L. A. Laxman Singh Gaur testifying that Collector, Indore and Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation accompanied by police force had demolished the structure and beaten and abused people present on the spot. It is accordingly prayed that Government should be directed to conduct an enquiry against them and punish them for being guilty of misuse of their office and powers and it should be asked to re-erect and reconstruct the temple on its own cost or else to pay damages and till it was done to allow devotees to construct the temple on their own.
( 3 ) REPLY has been filed by respondents No. 5 and 6, office bearers of the Society. According to them one Ishwarlal had illegally encroached upon the disputed land which was otherwise reserved for common amenities in the housing colony and constructed a three bed-room residential house thereon with all requisite facilities but without obtaining any building permission or sanction from the Municipal Corporation. However, he had raised a Board of "nav Durga Mata" temple on it to ward off any threat to the structure. Upon this colony residents filed complaints and fearing action Ishwarlal filed W. P. No. 944/98 seeking a restraint order against the demolition of structure. This writ petition was disposed off on 26-8-1998 requiring municipal Corporation to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Consequent thereupon municipal Corporation issued notices dated 4-9-1998 and 5-9-1998 to said Ishwarlal requiring him to show title to the land. He appeared but failed to show title to the land leading to the passing of order 7-9-1998 for removal of the structure.
( 4 ) IT is explained that Manish Bagh Housing Colony was spread over 5. 40 acres and out of this 10% of the land was to be kept vacant for common purposes under Bhumi Vikas Rules and the disputed land encroached upon by Ishwarlal fell in this.
( 5 ) THE municipal Corporation has also filed a reply taking by and large the same stand that the disputed land was reserved for public utility in the layout sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Deptt. and that Ishwarlal had encroached upon and constructed on this. Pursuant to order dated 26-8-1998 passed in W. P. No. 944/98 filed by him, he was put on notice on 4-9-1998 and affording an opportunity of hearing but he could not submit any documentary evidence supporting his title to the land. He was accordingly treated as encroacher and his illegal structure removed on 7-9-1998. It is also pointed out that there w as a remedy available against this under Section 307 (5) but none had chosen to avail of it.
( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has by and large adopted stand taken by Municipal Corporation and has stated that he had deputed his S. D. O on the spot at the request of the Corporation Authorities to assist them in discharge of their statutory duty.
( 7 ) IT is in this background that we are called upon to grant the reliefs prayed for and which, in our view, could not be granted. Petitioners are firstly wanting an enquiry against official respondents for their alleged misuse of power and office. But nothing was placed by them on record to show that they were guilty of
