The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal from a worshipper seeking a permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to prevent the demolition of a Shiv Mandir in Kondli Sabji Mandi.

The court emphasized that while the right to worship is a civil right that cannot be infringed upon, the appeal did not adequately address the protection of this right.

The bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju noted that the worshipper's claim failed to establish that his right to worship was being hindered. Instead, the plea attempted to enforce a non-existent right regarding an illegally constructed temple and a boundary wall around it.

Represented by Advocates Aditya Raj and Anju Agarwal, the worshipper contended that the DDA planned to demolish the temple built on donated land. He also alleged that illegal activities, such as gambling and alcohol consumption, occurred nearby without any official action taken despite multiple complaints. The worshipper sought damages amounting to ₹3,05,000.

Advocate Aditya Raj argued that the worshipper's standing was derived from his status as a devotee of the temple, which he claimed had been established since 1969 under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. He asserted that demolishing the temple would violate his right to worship due to its long-standing existence.

The DDA, represented by Standing Counsel Shobhna Takiar, countered that the land was government property and the temple was unauthorized. The DDA maintained that the land was designated for park development, having been acquired in 1978-79, and claimed that the worshipper constructed the boundary wall illegally in 2017, prompting the demolition attempts which were delayed due to police unavailability.

The trial court had previously dismissed the worshipper's application, citing a lack of evidence regarding the land donation and the worshipper's insufficient personal interest in the property. The court emphasized that the worshipper, not being a priest or part of the temple management, lacked standing to claim damages. It clarified that while the right to worship is civil, claims related to immovable property necessitate a demonstrable personal interest.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, asserting that the suit aimed at claiming ownership rather than protecting the right to worship. It concluded that the worshipper did not have an independent right over the disputed land and that the case did not involve legitimate worship but rather an attempt to assert rights over illegal temple structures.

"What is being sought to be done by the Appellant is to enforce a nonexisting right in an immovable property/temple which is constructed illegally, as well as a boundary wall which has been constructed around that temple. Thus, the civil right to worship of the Appellant is not being interdicted by any person or authority", the court added. 

The high court also cited a Supreme Court ruling stating that injunctions cannot be granted to individuals lacking a personal interest, and that a trespasser cannot seek an injunction against the rightful owner. The court concluded that the temple was unlawfully situated on public land occupied by the worshippers, thereby justifying the DDA’s efforts to remove the encroachment. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim protection previously granted to the worshippers was vacated.