Yamuna River Floodplain has to be zealously protected from unauthorised constructions: Delhi HC

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in its July 10 order refused to interfere with the single-judge bench’s order, and said that the appellant society had not placed “even a single scrap of a document” to show any kind of legitimacy it exercises, “either over the land or the illegal structure built thereon”.

‘Appellant admits that there is no document’

The bench further said, “At the outset, to the query put by us, learned counsel for the appellant admits that there is no document worth its name to show the ownership of the appellant/society over the said site whereon the said temple was built. Further, no sanction building plan has been placed on record by the appellant. He also does not dispute that the said temple was on a site which is located within the Restoration and Rejuvenation of Yamuna River Floodplain Asita, East U.P. land (86 Hectares) from ITO Barrage to old Iron Railway Bridge.”

“In such (a) fact situation…it is apparent that the temple has been constructed unauthorizedly on encroached land in an eco-sensitive zone area. If that is so, no structure, religious or otherwise, can be permitted to stand and have to be necessarily removed. More so, the Yamuna River Floodplain has to be zealously protected from such encroachment and unauthorized constructions,” the bench added while dismissing the samiti’s appeal.

The bench said that the appellant’s counsel had “unwittingly” admitted that the said area belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh and so the appellant society obviously would have “no right to carry out” unauthorized constructions over the land belonging to the government.

‘Nothing survived for further consideration’

The High Court further said that appellant had admitted that the entire structure comprising the temple had already been demolished by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and so even otherwise, “nothing survived for further consideration”.

The appellant society had claimed that it was established by a “distinguished priest”, renowned for founding 101 Shiv Lingas, and the temple – Prachin Shiv Mandir — stood on one of such revered Shiv Lingas. It said that the temple drew approximately 300 to 400 devotees regularly and had been existing for a long time on the site in question and regular devotees throng the temple every day.

The appellant had challenged demolition order on the grounds that it had received no formal notice and that the land belonged to the State of Uttar Pradesh and not the DDA, pursuant to which it had moved the single-judge bench of the High Court.

A brief background

In September last year the High Court had granted an interim protection which continued till May 29 when the single-judge bench passed the final order dismissing the society’s writ petition while granting it fifteen days to remove the idols and other religious objects. The High Court had then also granted liberty to DDA to carry out demolition of the unauthorized construction of the temple thereafter. The DDA demolished the structure subsequently. Against the May 29 order the society filed an appeal before the division bench.

The division bench in its July 10 order further said that the land in question where the temple was situated did belong to the State of UP, however the DDA was conferred with the task of removal of any type of encroachment from the land required as per an Memorandum of Understanding.

“Thus, looked at in any which way, the construction of (the) temple over the said land was not only unauthorized but also the DDA had proper authority to remove any such unauthorized construction or pre existing structures,” the bench said.

The bench further dismissed the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice by the Religious Committee (which had recommended the removal of the structure), noting that a “rank encroacher on public land carrying out unauthorized construction cannot make a grievance of the same”.