Delhi High Court: In a petition filed for issuance of direction to the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, District Central, Delhi (‘District Magistrate’), to demarcate the land of the petitioner, while referring to Section of the , a Single Judge bench of Dharmesh Sharma, J. dismissed the petition while saying that merely because the petitioner had been a cultivator for 30 years, no legal right, title or interest could be bestowed upon him to continue to occupy the subject property as the property is part of a larger public interest project under the Yamuna floodplain rejuvenation plans.
Background
The instant petition was related to the shrine of Naga Baba Bhola Giri situated at Triveni Ghat, Nigambodh Ghat, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi — 06 (‘subject property’).
The petitioner contended that the subject property had been in the possession of Mahant Shri Naga Baba since 1996 and presently, the documents record that the subject property which contains his shrine is in possession of his successor. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had been in possession of the subject property well before the deadline of the year 2006, as set by the .
The petitioner contended that he was under imminent threat of demolition of the shrine because, on 22-02-2023, the Flood Control and Irrigation Department officials demolished various buildings in the vicinity of the subject property. As a result, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate to demarcate the subject property.
The Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) contended that the subject property fell within the Revenue Estate Bela which was a government land placed at the disposal of Delhi Improvement Trust and pointed out that the subject property was shown as a park in the Khasra Girdawari for the period of 1987-1991 in the name of Sarkar Daulatmadar (government). A title document for 1970-1971 and a Mutation document dated 24-04-1972 also mentioned the same.
The DDA also said that the petitioner had encroached on government land and that the area falls within the floodplain of the Yamuna River and is not a private land. It was also mentioned that the subject property was included in the Zonal Development Plan for Zone ‘O’ which was approved by the Ministry of Urban Development.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that at the outset, the instant petition lacked merit. Further, it was also noted by the Court that the Khasra dated 01-10-1991 described the petitioner as the cultivator in respect of the subject property, and the owner was described as Sarkar Daulat Madaar which referred to the “Crown” and now indicated the authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi which was at the disposal of the DDA.
Further, the Court stated that the relief claimed by the petitioner had already been rendered as ineffective through their representation dated 23-02-2023 made to the District Magistrate which was rejected vide letter dated 19-04-2023 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
The Court stated that it was apparent that the petitioner was a rank trespasser and that merely because he had been a cultivator for 30 years or more would not bestow any legal right, title, or interest to continue to occupy the subject property. The Court also noted that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the place was of any historical significance or dedicated to the public for worship or for offering prayers to the deceased Baba.
The Court said that the petitioner’s plea that the District Magistrate had a duty to inform and explain as to what was the status of the subject property in the revenue records was ill-conceived. Further, while addressing the zonal development plan, the Court stated that the subject property was meant for larger public interest and the petitioner could not claim any vested rights to continue to occupy the same.
The Court found it pertinent to refer to Court on its own motion v. Union of India, wherein directions were passed for the restoration and rejuvenation of the Yamuna River Flood Plains. Further, the Court said that since the petitioner did not place any evidence that the shrine was a place of historic significance and devoted to the public at large, and dispensed DDA from providing any notice to the petitioner.
Further, the Court said that the mere fact that the matter of demolition had not been approved by the Religious Affairs Committee does not play a vital role since it was not a shrine devoted to the public but a private one.
The Court stated that Naga Sadhus are devotees of ‘Lord Shiva’ and are ordained to live a life of complete detachment which is why seeking property rights in their names does not conform to their beliefs and practices.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition emphasizing that the petitioner has no right to continue occupying the property due to aforementioned reasons.
[Mahant Shri Naga Baba Bhola Giri v. District Magistrate, W.P.(C) 2377 of 2023, Decided on 31-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate Renu, Advocate Manya Mishra, Advocate Dipak Raj Singh
For Respondents — ASC Udit Malik, Advocate Vishal Chanda, Standing Counsel Shobhana Takiar, Advocate Deeksha L. Kakar, Advocate Kuljeet Singh, Advocate Akansha Choudhary, Advocate Razia
The post appeared first on .