Public property cannot be encroached upon for religious structures, as the state holds land in trust for the public.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.3.2016 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the Petition filed by the private Respondents was allowed on the statement made by the State of Chhattisgarh that it would comply with the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.23A68/2012-13 (Ward No.21 Mohallavasi vs. Vanmali yadav).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a temple has been constructed on Government land. It is not disputed that the temple in question was constructed in the year 2013 on Government land. Finally, an order for demolition of the temple and possession being transferred in favour of the state was passed. Unfortunately, though the order was passed by the Tahsildar, it was not being executed keeping in view the sentiments of the people worshiping the temple. The private Respondents herein had filed a Writ Petition alleging that the Government land had been encroached upon and the order passed by the Tahsildar was not being complied with. The State Counsel in the Writ Petition made a statement that it would ensure that the order of the Tahsildar is executed in letter and spirit.

3. This led to the passing of the impugned order. In this Appeal, it has been urged that the Writ Petition was not maintainable since no personal right of the Writ Petitioners was affected. It has also been submitted that since the order in favour of the State was to be executed, individual persons could not file a Petition for execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar.

4. We do not find any merits in this Appeal. The State or the instrumentalities of the State are not the owners of the land in the real sense. In fact, the land is owned by public. The State holds the land in the trust for the citizens. Therefore, whenever any land of the State is encroached upon, any member of the public can come forward and claim that this public land has been encroached upon and the possession should be restored to the public through the Government.

5. The Apex Court in 2011 (14) SCC 62 ( Union of India vs. State of Gujarat and Others ) had, on 29.9.2009, held in paragraph - 5 as under:
'5. As an interim measure, we direct that henceforth no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of temple, church, mosque or gurdwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places etc. In respect of the unauthorised 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.'

6. In the present case also, the State has taken action and an order for demolition of the temple and for possession of the said land has been passed in favour of the State. This order has to be and must be complied with in letter and spirit. No person can be permitted to set up a temple on public land. If a person is very religious, he can set up a temple on his own land or he can purchase a land for setting up the temple. A person cannot show his charitable or spiritual nature by encroaching upon the public property. A person who violates the law and encroaches upon public property cannot claim that he has set up a house of God. The very basis on which the structure was erected was by encroaching upon public land. The Rule of law runs like a Golden Thread through our Constitution. When the Rule of law is violated, there can be no religious or spiritual sanctity. No religion or spiritual thought preaches violation of the Rule of law. Therefore, a structure set up in violation of the Rule of law can never be treated to be a house of God.

7. We therefore dismiss the Appeal.