New construction of mandir or masjid in wb
NGO
(Querist) 22 May 2012
This query is : Resolved
PL INFORM WHETHER NEW CONSTRUCTION OF MANDIR OR MASJID IS BAR IN WEST BENGAL OR NOT
M.Sheik Mohammed Ali
(Expert) 22 May 2012
you must consult with either corporation or district collector or village administrator or who is responsible of your area officer.
NGO
(Querist) 23 May 2012
SIR, I WANT TO GET THE INFORMATION ONLY
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2012
Do you want to construct a Mandir or Masjid as an NGO? Which NGO you belong to as President?
NGO
(Querist) 23 May 2012
SIR, I WANT TO GET THE INFORMATION ONLY. SIR IT IS INFORMED THAT A CLUB IS CONSTRUCTING A MANDIR IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND IT IS TOLD BY A LEARNED ADVOCATE THAT NOBODY CAN CONSTRUCT NEW MANDIR IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR HIS OWN PLACE BY THE VERDICT OF SUPREME COURT ORDER. I WANT TO KNOW THAT VERDICT.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 May 2012
We will not differentiate between illegal temple or mosque: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra May 11, 2011, 01.48am IST
NEW DELHI: While taking action against illegal and unauthorised religious structures on public land, there will be no differentiation between a temple or a mosque, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
Singed by the court's September 29, 2009 order banning fresh construction of roadside religious structures and asking states to identify old ones for action against them, Karnataka Wakf Board pleaded for mercy before a bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari, V S Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma.The Wakf property may not be demolished," pleaded the counsel knowing full well that many Wakf structures stood on public land or by the roadside. The bench rejected the plea and said, "We are not going to differentiate between a temple or a mosque if it is an illegal or unauthorised structure."
The counsel said a historic mosque was among the Wakf properties which could face demolition and requested the court to protect it. The bench refused to relent and warned, "We told you that we will not differentiate between a temple or a mosque. There is no gain in repeating the argument."
The court's September 29 order had two components:
* No unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of temple, church, mosque or gurudwara etc on public streets, public parks or other public places
* Unauthorised construction of religious nature which had already taken place shall be reviewed on case-to-case basis and appropriate action shall be taken in every matter as expeditiously as possible.
The bench took exception to the slow pace in filing of affidavits and asked the states to give a copy to solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam, who will prepare a status report on unauthorised religious structures in each state for the July 20 hearing.
The court on July 27 last year had asked the UP government to indicate "the total number of unauthorised religious constructions on public land, public parks and public places and also indicate how many of them have been removed, relocated and regularised".
From the affidavit filed by UP chief secretary Anoop Mishra, it appears that the state is not ready to take action against unauthorised religious structures. Of the total 45,152 unauthorised religious structures, Mayawati government has decided to regularise 27,345.
It said, "Out of total 45,152 unauthorised constructions, 47 constructions have been removed, 26 relocated and 27,345 constructions have been identified as such about which decision has been taken to regularise them by the concerned district level committee. The remaining number of such constructions are under consideration of the district level committee of concerned district on case-to-case basis."
The case arose from an appeal filed by the Union government challenging a Gujarat High Court order in 2006 allowing municipal authorities to demolish unauthorised religious structures in communally sensitive Vadodara. The Centre had feared a law and order situation. The SC had stayed the HC order on May 4, 2006.
The HC order had come on a PIL, which had quoted a survey by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation stating that there were about 1,200 temples and over 250 mosques that encroached on public land.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2012
The same advocate, who told you about the verdict could also have informed about that specific judgment.
Hope, Ajay Sethi's reply would have guided you appropriately. As a supplement, I may say, any SC verdict is a case specific to be made applicable on that particular case and cannot be made applicable universally on all cases unless the SC directs so to adopt that as a case law for all types of cases of a particular class with appropriate direction to the Union Government, all the States of India and the High Courts. If situations, environments, and circumstances are similar and no clear legal provisions are available in support of any case that case law has to be quoted in the affidavit/ application to make that applicable on the case and seek judgment based on that case law.
NGO
(Querist) 23 May 2012
THANK YOU MR SETHI AND MR DHINGRA ALSO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ELABORATE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MATTER.THEN ONE THING, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MANDIR OR MASJID THERE MUST BE CERTAIN GUIDELINE TO BE FOLLOWED. IF YOU OR ANY BODY FOCUS THE MATTER IN RESPECT OF WEST BENGAL WE SHALL BE OBLIGED.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2012
For that particular matter you may have to enquire from the concerned estates department or the municipality of the area concerned in the WB State.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 29 May 2012
Nothing left to be added.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
