Unauthorized Religious Structures Not Permissible | Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Respectful Removal Of Mandir And Gurudwara Built Without Approval
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harsh Bunger directed removal of unauthorized constructions of a Gurudwara and Mandir erected within a residential colony without sanctioned site or building plans. The Court held that structures built in the name of religion without requisite approvals were unauthorized and must be removed in accordance with law. Directions were issued to the concerned respondents to undertake removal of holy scriptures, books, idols and unauthorized constructions within specified timelines, failing which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was authorized to proceed with enforcement. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
The dispute arose in relation to constructions carried out within a residential colony named GBP Crest, situated at Village Bhagomajra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The colony had been developed by a private developer. The petitioners, owners of commercial sites within the colony, approached the Court contending that certain residents, through the managing committees of a Gurudwara and a Mandir, had encroached upon open and common areas including green belts, parking spaces, and access roads.
The petitioners contended that the Gurudwara and Mandir had been constructed without sanctioned site plans. According to the pleadings, commercial site owners and the public faced severe inconvenience as passages and thoroughfares were obstructed by construction activities, installation of barricades, and other structures erected by respondents No. 6 to 8, which included the Residents Welfare Society and the managing committees of the religious institutions.
Respondent No. 7, representing the Gurudwara management, in its reply, stated that construction commenced in April 2023 following a resolution passed by the Residents Welfare Society. It was submitted that the land was originally vacant and owned by the builder, who was absconding due to legal proceedings. Respondent No. 7 claimed that later the land was gifted to Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji by one Mrs. Neelam Begam through a gift deed dated 28.03.2025. An application for regularization of the building was submitted thereafter.
With respect to the Mandir, respondent No. 8 stated that construction had taken place in 2018 and the builder, respondent No. 5, was in possession of related documents. Respondent No. 8 submitted that they had received a notice from the municipal authorities under Section 195A read with Section 220 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for removal of the Mandir and had filed an appeal challenging the notice.
Further, respondent No. 6, the Residents Welfare Society, in its reply stated that certain barricades and boundary structures had been placed to protect residents from unauthorized vehicular traffic.
In essence, respondents No. 7 and 8 admitted that the Gurudwara and Mandir had been constructed without sanctioned building or site plans. The petitioners, in turn, relied upon photographs and documentary material to assert that the constructions violated applicable building norms and obstructed common areas meant for public use.
Justice Harsh Bunger, after hearing the parties, observed that the constructions of both the Gurudwara and the Mandir had been carried out without approvals. The Court recorded:
"The construction of Mandir as well as Gurudwara has been raised without there being any sanctioned building plan/layout plan. It has also not been shown that before raising construction of any such religious structure, any approval from the competent authority was sought."
The Court also noted: "Although respondent No. 7 has taken a stand that subsequent to filing of instant civil writ petition, it was discovered that the area whereon Gurudwara is constructed was owned by Neelam Begum... the fact remains that the buildings have been constructed without there being any approved site plan/building plan and/or requisite permissions thereof."
Referring to precedent, the Court recorded the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Parsad Gupta v. R.G., Jharkhand High Court and Others, stating: "Usurpation of public property in the name of religion and construction of religious places without permission from the Municipal Authorities cannot be permitted."
The Court also quoted the earlier decision in Mandir Jai Bajrang Bali Parbandhak Sabha (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation: "It is thus, apparent that the plaintiffs have tried to usurp the public property alleging the same to be the property of the Mandir without any proof either of title or of possession."
The Court concluded: "Since the Mandir as well as the Gurudwara have been constructed without there being any sanctioned site plan/layout plan and/or other approvals/sanctions, it has to be held that the construction of the aforesaid structures (Mandir and Gurudwara) are unauthorized and are liable to be removed."
The High Court issued the following final directions: The Court afforded respondents No. 6 to 8, along with their office bearers, a period of six weeks to remove the holy scriptures, books, and idols from the unauthorized structures after observing all religious ceremonies. It was directed that they also remove the unauthorized constructions themselves within this period. The Court observed that it would be appreciated if the corrective measures were voluntarily undertaken.
The Court further ordered that in the event respondents No. 6 to 8 failed to comply, they would be granted an additional period of four weeks thereafter to remove the holy scriptures, books, idols and unauthorized structures. A compliance affidavit in this regard was directed to be submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, and a copy of the same to be filed with the Registry of the Court.
In case of further failure, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, was directed to initiate all necessary steps to remove the holy scriptures, books, idols, and unauthorized constructions after observing religious ceremonies. The Magistrate was authorized to seek police assistance for enforcement and recover all expenses from respondents No. 6 to 8 and/or their office bearers.
Additionally, in the event of non-compliance, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kharar, was directed to submit a status report with details of the office bearers of respondents No. 6 to 8 to the Registry of the Court.
The Court ordered that upon receipt of the status report, the matter be placed before the Court for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents No. 6 to 8 and their office bearers.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the above directions. All pending applications were also ordered to stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Navneet Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. G.S. Khokhar, Advocate, Mr. Viren Sharma and Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocates, Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma
Case Title: Gurmej Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:049487
Case Number: CWP-25680-2024 (O/M)
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger
[Read/Download order]
