28. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1297/2010 GURDWARA FAUJI BUNGA SAHIB(REGD.) ..... Petitioner Through Mr. A.K. Bajpai & Mr. M.F. Khan, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for MCD. Mr. Jagat Singh, Sr. Central Government Panel Cousnel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 12.03.2010 1. The petitioner admittedly is an unauthorized encroacher on government land. No document of title is available and filed by the petitioner. I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are required to initiate proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 even in cases of unauthorized encroachment on government land without any authorized allotment/occupation at the first instance. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit CS (OS) No. 163/2009 titled Gurdwara Fauji Sahib (Regd.) versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, which was disposed of vide order dated 10th February, 2009. The said order reads as under:- “ It is agreed by both counsels(sic) that the matter be referred to the Religious Committee within a period of three days qua the remaining portion of the structure which has not been demolished by the defendants so far. The Religious Committee shall decide the issue within a period of three weeks. In the meantime, the defendants shall maintain status quo with regard to the un-demolished portion of the suit property. The above order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties which they may raise before the Religious Committee. The suit and the application are disposed of. Dasti.” 3. The Religious Committee after examining the matter came to the conclusion that the remaining religious structure should be demolished. They have recorded that the said structure is coming in the way of the project for providing parking facilities for Commonwealth Games 2010. It may be also stated here that there exists another religious structure belonging to the same community about 600 meters away from the present site. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sd. Paramjit Singh versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, 93 (2001) DLT 740 and submits that as per the policy, the respondent-MCD cannot remove any encroachment if a religious structure has been constructed. The petitioner has not placed on record any such policy. The order in the case of Sd. Paramjit Singh (supra) merely records statement of the counsel for the respondent that the religious structure in the said case was very old and had been in existence for a long time and the respondent-MCD as a matter of policy did not want to disturb the same. I do not think the said order lays down any ratio or any binding principle of law as such. In any case, the respondent-MCD has taken permission from the Religious Committee. 5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 12, 2010 VKR