Naga Sadhus' Detached Devotion To Lord Shiva Contradicts Property Rights: Delhi High Court

The plea, brought forth aimed at securing land demarcation for a property allegedly under their possession since 1996.

A Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma said, “Making no attempt to write a thesis on the way of life of Naga sadhus, as we understand in the Hindu religion, Naga sadhus are devotees of “Lord Shiva” and they are ordained to live a life of complete detachment from the worldly affairs, and therefore, seeking property rights in their names does not conform with their beliefs and practices.”

Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra appeared for the Petitioner and ASC Udit Malik appeared for the Respondents.

The Court deemed the petitioner a "rank trespasser" and emphasized that the property served a larger public interest, such as the rejuvenation of the Yamuna river. The Court said, “At the cost of repetition, the petitioner has no right, title, or interest to continue to use and occupy the subject property. It is but apparent that he is a rank tress-passer and merely for the fact that he has been a cultivator for 30 years or more does not bestow with him any legal right, title or interest to continue to occupy the subject property.”

The Court further underscored the potential repercussions of allowing every sadhu, baba, fakir, or guru to erect shrines or samadhi sthals on public land for personal gains. The Court added, “In our country, we might find thousands of Sadhus, Babas, fakirs or Gurus in different parts of the landscape and if each one is allowed to build a shrine or samadhi sthal on a public land and thereby, continue to use it for personal gains by the vested interest groups, that would lead to disastrous consequences jeopardizing larger public interest.”

Regarding the demolition threat posed to the Shrine of Naga Baba Bhola Giri, following the demolition of nearby structures by the Flood Control and Irrigation Department of the Delhi government, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the petitioner's claims of historical significance or dedication to public worship. The Court said, “It appears that the petitioner has constructed two rooms with tin shed and other amenities at the side, besides a Shrine of the revered Baba, who died in the year 1996. But then, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the place is of any historical significance or dedicated to the public for worship or for offering prayers to the revered deceased Baba.”

The Court highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner's assertions, noting that the claimed Ghat No. 33 did not align with the recorded historic ghats in the area. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the shrine's historical importance or its dedication to public worship.

Cause Title: Mahant Shri Naga Baba Bhola Giri v. District Magistrate District Central & Ors., [2024:DHC:4560]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Renu, Manya Mishra, and Dipak Raj Singh

Respondents: Additional standing counsel (ASC) Udit Malik and Advocate Vishal Chanda Standing Counsel Shobhana Takiar, Advocates Deeksha L Kakar, Kuljeet Singh, Akansha Choudhary, and Razia.