A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Syed Mohd Umar, saying the petition contained broad and omnibus prayers without identifying particular sites, structures or instances of unlawful occupation. The court, however, allowed him to approach it again with specific facts and properly framed pleadings.
Umar had sought directions to Delhi’s authorities to clear unauthorised religious structures from parks, green belts, playgrounds, roads, footpaths, civic amenity sites and other public land. His petition also covered commercial and residential constructions allegedly raised through encroachment.
The requests went beyond demolition. The petitioner wanted the authorities to restore parks and open spaces, prepare zone-wise and ward-wise inventories of encroachments, establish a joint special task force, identify officials responsible for failing to prevent illegal construction and create an online portal for complaints.
The bench said it would be difficult to issue such extensive directions without precise allegations concerning identified locations. Details about the nature of each structure, the land-owning agency, the legal status of the occupation and the action already taken by authorities were necessary for judicial examination.
The ruling distinguishes between the existence of a public duty to protect government land and the evidentiary requirements for obtaining enforceable court orders. It does not protect an unauthorised structure or prevent civic and land-owning agencies from acting under applicable laws. Instead, it requires litigants to present verifiable cases rather than seek a citywide mandate based on an undifferentiated claim.
Delhi’s fragmented land administration makes that distinction significant. Public spaces fall under agencies including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal Council, Public Works Department, Forest Department, Delhi Cantonment Board and the Railways. Determining whether a structure is illegal can require examination of land records, building permissions, historical documents, court orders and administrative decisions.
Religious structures on public land are also handled through a specialised administrative process. Delhi has a Religious Committee that examines cases referred by land-owning bodies and makes recommendations after considering ownership, traffic, public order, heritage and other factors. Courts have previously directed petitioners raising site-specific complaints to place their representations before the committee.
The wider legal framework was shaped by a 2009 Supreme Court direction prohibiting new unauthorised construction in the name of temples, churches, mosques, gurdwaras or other places of worship on streets, parks and public places. Existing structures were to be reviewed individually by state governments and Union Territories instead of being governed by a single automatic demolition rule.
That case-by-case principle reflects the practical and legal complications surrounding demolition. Authorities must identify the land, determine ownership, establish the absence of permission and provide procedural safeguards. Some structures may be covered by pending litigation, protection orders, relocation proposals or administrative policies, while adjoining commercial extensions may have a different legal status from the place of worship itself.
The High Court has acted where petitions contained identifiable locations and supporting material. In January, it directed the municipal corporation to survey parks and public spaces around Jama Masjid after photographs indicated possible encroachments. The corporation was told to verify the claims and take lawful action wherever violations were found, without the court accepting the petitioners’ broader accusations at face value.
The court has also scrutinised complaints that appear selective. Earlier this year, a bench questioned an organisation over repeated petitions directed at alleged encroachments involving mosques and dargahs, stressing that public interest litigation should address genuine civic concerns rather than pursue a narrowly targeted campaign.
Umar’s petition failed primarily because it sought orders covering an undefined universe of structures. Without addresses, photographs, land records, representations made to authorities or details of official inaction, the court could not assess whether any particular construction was unauthorised or whether the responsible agency had neglected its statutory duty.
(IPA Service)
