Delhi High Court imposes costs of ₹1 lakh on litigant who made ‘Lord Hanuman’ a party to private temple property dispute

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh costs to a man who made “Lord Hanuman” a party objector (appellant) in an appeal regarding the dispute over a temple built on private land and claiming the right to worship therein.

“I never imagined that one day God would litigate on my behalf. However, this fortunately appears to be a case of Divinity By Proxy,noticed Justice C Hari Shankar.

The court dismissed Ankit Mishra’s appeal and directed him to pay the costs to Suraj Malik, to whom the property belonged.

“To prevent appellant 1 Ankit Mishra from now raising the contention that the costs should be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is clarified that the costs should be paid in full by him – with a small “h”,‘, the court clarified.

Mishra challenged an order of the ADJ dismissing the appeal filed by him and other persons, noting that the appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property.

The objection stated that Lord Hanuman, Bhagwan Shiv ji, Shree Ram Darbar, Devi Durga Mata ji, Bhagwan Kishanji and other visible and invisible deities existed continuously and were worshiped by Hindu devotees by performing puja and other rituals in the temple premises.

It was alleged that a decree, passed in 2022 in favor of Malik under a settlement agreement regarding the suit property, was an attempt to impose restrictions on Mishra to hamper his right to offer prayers and perform rituals of gods to be performed in the said temple.

Justice Shankar dismissed the appeal and observed that if a person builds a temple on his own property intended primarily for himself and his family, there is no prohibition against allowing members of the public to offer prayers in the temple on festive occasions.

However, the court added that the ruling that public worship in a private temple, even with free entry, does not ipso facto indicate that it is a public temple.

“Nor is the land on which a private temple is built the property of the deity just because the public is allowed to worship there. What is essential is the purpose for which the temple was built and dedicated to the deity consecrated in it, and the purpose for which the temple was opened to the public.the court said.

It added that the responsibility to establish that the temple, though initially privately built, over time acquires a public character is all those who claim.

“It is an admitted position that the land on which the temple was constructed is private land and is currently owned by respondent 5 Suraj Malik. How the temple came into being is not stated in the objection. Although there is a claim that the temple was built in 1997, even that is not supported by evidence. When the temple was built is therefore a matter of pure conjecture.the court said.

It added: “Mere worship by the public in the private temple does not turn it into a public temple. Therefore, the allegations in the notice of appeal do not even prima facie indicate that the disputed temple, in the present case, is a public temple.”

Justice Shankar concluded that there was nothing to indicate, even prima facie, that the temple was a public temple and Mishra’s claim that he had the right to defend Lord Hanuman as his next friend was not taken into consideration.

“There is no concept in law that the right to worship belongs to the public in a private temple unless the owner of the temple makes available such right or, with the passage of time and in accordance with the directions identified by the law, In the Supreme Court judgments cited above, the private temple has been converted into a public temple,the court said.

Title: ANKIT MISHRA & ANR. v. SANTOSH SHARMA & ORS.

Click here to read the order