In a judgment that underscores the precedence of property and municipal law over unauthorized religious constructions, the Bombay High Court recently rejected the plea filed by the Pardeshi Baba Charitable Trust to halt the demolition of a shrine located in the Thane district of Maharashtra. The Trust, which manages the site known as the Pardeshi Baba Dargah, had approached the court seeking protection against the demolition of what it claimed to be a longstanding religious structure. The court, however, concluded that the structure was an unlawful encroachment constructed without any legal sanction or title over the land, which belongs to a private individual.
The division bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata ruled that the shrine, spread over approximately 17,610 square feet, was erected and expanded illegally over a span of several years. The court observed that the Trust had failed to establish any legal right over the land, such as ownership, a valid tenancy agreement, or evidence of adverse possession. Despite arguments citing the religious and historical significance of the structure, the bench found that such sentiments could not override the fundamental rights of a property owner or the planning framework of the municipality.
The court emphasized that religious faith or public sentiment does not confer legal ownership. It reaffirmed the position that unauthorized constructions, even if they involve places of worship, must be subject to the rule of law. The bench noted that the Trust had not only failed to prove legal possession but had also made several unauthorized additions to the structure over time, further aggravating the encroachment. The judges expressed concern that if such illegal constructions were allowed to persist under the guise of religious activity, it would set a dangerous precedent that could lead to unregulated and unjustified occupation of land.
The dispute had originally reached the High Court in response to an order passed by municipal authorities directing the demolition of the unauthorized structure. The private landowner on whose property the structure was built had also filed legal complaints against the encroachment. Although the Trust attempted to argue that the land had been used for religious purposes for decades and that the dargah held cultural significance for the local community, the court found no documentary evidence to support these assertions. The absence of government-sanctioned permission or municipal approvals weighed heavily in the court’s decision.
Following the High Court’s decision, the Pardeshi Baba Trust approached the Supreme Court, which granted temporary relief in the form of a seven-day stay on the demolition. This interim protection was intended to give the Trust an opportunity to approach the High Court again, this time through a recall petition. The Supreme Court refrained from making a direct ruling on the merits of the case and instead limited its intervention to procedural grounds, allowing the Trust to argue that certain crucial developments had not been considered in the earlier High Court order.
One such development was the dismissal of a civil suit related to the same property in April 2025. The Trust claimed that the High Court had failed to take this fact into account while passing its demolition order. It also argued that only around 3,600 square feet of the total land was in dispute, contrary to the 17,610 square feet figure cited by municipal authorities. The High Court, however, found these assertions unconvincing and maintained that the entire structure had been erected illegally, irrespective of the exact area it occupied.
In their detailed reasoning, the judges stressed that the lack of lawful entitlement to the land made the nature or use of the construction irrelevant. They also underlined that urban planning regulations and private property rights could not be set aside on the basis of unverified religious claims. The court reiterated that even structures used for worship must comply with municipal laws, zoning rules, and property rights, and that allowing such constructions to continue would effectively reward unlawful behavior.
The court was also mindful of the larger public interest and the dangers posed by encouraging unauthorized construction. It acknowledged that while religious structures are important in the social fabric, they cannot be allowed to proliferate without accountability. Granting exemptions to illegal religious buildings, the court said, could lead to chaos in urban governance and severely undermine rule of law.
The Trust's claim that hostile public reaction could result from the demolition was also addressed. The court firmly stated that public sentiment cannot be used as a shield against legal action, and that enforcement authorities must be allowed to carry out their duties without fear of backlash. The High Court further observed that such resistance, if unchecked, would only embolden other illegal constructions and could potentially lead to law-and-order challenges.
By upholding the demolition order, the High Court reinforced the sanctity of private property and the responsibilities of municipal bodies to enforce compliance with development laws. It also clarified that the mere presence of devotees or the assertion of long-standing religious activity cannot create a legal right where none exists. The judgment serves as a firm reminder that religious freedom, while protected under the Constitution, does not extend to violations of land and municipal laws.
Following the High Court’s reaffirmation of its demolition order, the Pardeshi Baba Trust is expected to pursue its recall petition to contest the decision further. The court has permitted this avenue, provided that it presents new and valid legal grounds for reconsideration. In the meantime, the demolition remains on hold due to the Supreme Court’s temporary status quo order, but unless the Trust can demonstrate compelling legal rights over the land, the High Court’s ruling is unlikely to be reversed.
This case is significant not just for the parties involved but also for the larger legal and urban planning landscape in India. It addresses the recurring tension between faith-based claims and legal ownership, particularly in densely populated urban centers where land encroachment is a persistent issue. The judgment is part of a growing body of rulings in which courts have been unwilling to tolerate unauthorized religious structures, even in the face of political or social pressure.
Moreover, it raises important questions about the accountability of religious trusts and the extent to which they can operate independently of regulatory oversight. The ruling also places the onus on local municipal bodies to be proactive and firm in addressing such issues, and not allow them to linger for years under political or administrative pressure. In this instance, the High Court clearly chose to uphold the law above all else, sending a clear message that illegal encroachments—regardless of the motives behind them—will not be spared from judicial scrutiny.
As the matter now moves into its next procedural phase, much will depend on whether the Trust can offer any new legal basis for its claim or whether the demolition will proceed as ordered. Regardless of the outcome, the Bombay High Court’s decision stands as a critical affirmation of legal norms over religious encroachment and a firm endorsement of rule-based governance in an area where legal clarity is often clouded by sentiment and tradition.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.