Delhi High Court: In a writ petition challenging a Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) resolution that refused to regularise an unauthorisedly-constructed temple and directed disposal of Nazul land only by auction, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., dismissed the petition, holding that DDA’s policy decision to auction all Nazul lands earmarked for health, education, socio-cultural and sports facilities suffered from no infirmity, that the temple built without sanction was an illegal structure. The Court stated that the petitioner remained free to bid in a fresh auction for any other plot to run the temple.
Background
DDA had executed a perpetual lease deed in favour of the American Embassy Indian Employees Co-operative Housing Society (Respondent 3) for development of Priyadarshini Vihar, under which two blocks Block A and Block B were earmarked for nursery schools. Respondent 3 subsequently sought allotment of the Block A nursery site for construction of a temple. On 9 June 1987, DDA asked Respondent 3 to constitute a separate religious society and apply afresh for allotment; pursuant thereto, the petitioner society, Sanmati Sabha, was constituted and applied for allotment on 21 January 1988. On 17 June1992, Respondent 3 again sought a change of land use from nursery school to temple/playground.
In 1991—92, however, the petitioner society constructed a temple on the site without any change of land use or sanction from DDA. Separately, Respondent 2 filed a writ petition seeking removal of encroachments in Priyadarshini Vihar. Subsequently, DDA passed an order approving allotment of the entire plot for construction of the temple and an accompanying Satsang Bhawan. However, a Division Bench of this Court in Sanmati Sabha v. J.K. Mittal, LPA 518/2016, order dated 18-12-2017, directed DDA to re-examine the question of allotment afresh, without being influenced by the 2016 resolution, in effect setting aside the earlier approval.
In compliance, DDA held a meeting on 27 December 2021 and issued Minutes of Meeting recording that (i) the earlier approval dated 11-3-2016 stood null-and-void in view of the Court’s directions; and (ii) upon examining the matter in light of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Rules) as amended by the Gazette Notification dated 11.03.2021, disposal of Nazul land for socio-cultural-religious categories was now to be undertaken only through auction, so that the petitioner’s request for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation could not be considered and DDA was not competent to regularise such unlawful occupation. The petitioner assailed these Minutes of Meeting in the present writ petition, seeking allotment of the 926 sq. m. plot in A-Block, Priyadarshini Vihar, and regularisation of the temple and Satsang Bhawan already built upon it.
Issue
Whether, in light of the 2021 Amendment to the Nazul Rules mandating disposal of Nazul land by auction, the petitioner society could claim allotment of the disputed plot and regular or whether DDA’s Minutes of Meeting declining petitioner such regularisation and reserving the land for auction called for interference under Article 226 of Constitution.
Contentions
The petitioner contended that the petitioner’s society was squarely covered by Rule 5 of the Nazul Rules, which permits allotment of Nazul land to, among others, “social or charitable institutions, eligible under Rule 20,” including for religious purposes, subject to payment of premium and ground rent as fixed by the Central Government. It was submitted that the temple already constructed ought accordingly to be regularised, and that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the costs of regularisation.
For DDA, it was submitted that, in terms of the 2021 Amendment to the Nazul Rules, the land was no longer being allotted directly for any of the specified purposes; instead, to optimise revenue, DDA had taken a policy decision to dispose of all Nazul land meant for health, education, socio-cultural and sports facilities exclusively by auction. It was clarified that the petitioner was not excluded from this process and could itself participate in the auction and bid for allotment of land, including for religious purposes.
Analysis and Decision
The Court found no infirmity in the stand taken by DDA. It held that the policy decision to dispose of all Nazul lands by auction, taken to optimise revenue and to plan the development of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, called for no interference.
On the regularisation prayer, the Court noted that the temple had, admittedly, been constructed without sanction and contrary to the scheme for disposal of Nazul lands, and was accordingly “clearly an illegal structure” that could not be permitted to continue. It further observed that the land had, in any event, been allotted for a nursery school and that this purpose continued to subsist, with no change of land use having taken place.
The Court held that nothing prevented the petitioner from participating in a fresh auction, in accordance with DDA’s auction rules, for any other plot on which to run the temple. On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed.
The Court directed that the idols be removed from the temple by the petitioner, in accordance with all due respect and ceremonies as required, within four weeks from the date of the order.
[Sanmati Sabha v. DDA, W.P.(C) 6231 of 2025, decided on 24-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Amit Pushya, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC, with Vagmi Singh, Vidit Pratap Singh and Pawan Dubey, Advocates.