Delhi
,
Katwaria Sarai
,
New Delhi
Published :
Aug 2019
|
Updated :
Dalits Protest Demolition of Ravidas Temple in Delhi, Union Government Proposes Rebuilding
Reported by
Aditi Patil
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
1986
Year started
1
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
1986
Year started
1
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Communal/Ethnic Conflict
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Communal/Ethnic Conflict
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

The Ravidas temple was demolished by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on August 10, 2019, following an order of the Supreme Court dated April 8, 2019. Dalit leaders have accused the Union government, to whom the DDA reports, of disregarding the sentiments of Dalits, who are followers of Ravidas.
Upholding a 2018 order of the Delhi high court, the Supreme Court had ordered the area to be vacated within two months, starting April 2019. On August 2, the Guru Ravidas Jayanti Samaroh Samiti (an organisation that supervised the temple's management) informed the Supreme Court that it had vacated the area. The court wanted the claim to be verified. 
On August 9, the DDA informed the court that the premises had not been vacated and that the Samiti had misled the court by giving a "false statement". The DDA also said that the Samiti was creating unauthorised buildings and structures on green land and hence they were illegal. The court then ordered that the premises should be vacated within a day (by August 10) and the structure be removed by the DDA with the help of the police. The court directed Delhi Police to provide adequate help to remove the structure. 
The root cause of the conflict is a 33-year-old legal battle between the DDA and the Samiti regarding the ownership of the land where the temple was built. The Samiti contests that it has ownership over the land in question while the DDA argues that it is essentially government land encroached upon by the Samiti.
According to documents submitted by the Samiti to the Delhi high court and later to the Supreme Court, the overall premises consist of an area spread over approximately 2.55 acres, which includes 20 rooms, a hall and two separate meditation rooms. The matter reached the court first in 1986 when the Samiti filed a writ petition against the DDA and the Delhi high court passed a status quo order on any further construction. On November 5, 1992, the DDA undertook a demolition drive to raze the unauthorised buildings. The Samiti moved the court and a long, legal battle over land ownership followed.
The DDA has consistently rejected the ownership claims made by the Samiti. It said that the land in question was acquired in 1963 under the Land Acquisition Act and that due compensation was paid to the people living on it. Though the high court ruled in favour of the DDA, it suggested a possible way out to resolve the dispute: to shift the temple and the two rooms from the existing location to about 400 feet at the periphery of the plot of land. The court said there would be independent access to the small temple with two rooms and there would be no need to use or access any other land of the DDA. The temple authorities refused and the legal battle over land ownership continued.
After the demolition of the temple in August 2019, protesters of all age groups marched from Ambedkar Bhawan in Jhandewalan to the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on August 21. The protest in Delhi came a week after a similar protest on August 13 by Dalits in Punjab over the same issue. The demonstrators in Delhi arrived from Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and other states. Ninety-six Dalit activists were arrested
Ashok Tanwar and Pradeep Jain Aditya, two former MPs from the Congress party, filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court contending that the demolition of the Ravidas temple and the prevention of entry to the temple site for devotees entail a violation of the right to worship. Stating in the petition that the site has been worshipped for the last 500-600 years and is protected under the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the petitioners claimed that the "Guru Dham" and the adjoining structures had been there for centuries and existed prior to any master plan or modern English law system as now prevalent in India. 
The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Shiromani Guru Ravidas Mandir Sanyukta Sanrakhshan Samiti, an umbrella body of Dalit groups formed to protest against the temple demolition, has demanded that the government rebuild the temple at the same spot. They sat on a strike at the Jantar Mantar in New Delhi from August 30 till September 7.
On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted a proposal submitted by the Union government for the construction of a shrine dedicated to Guru Ravidas. The proposal suggested the construction of the temple in South Delhi's Tughlaqabad forest area in 400 square metres of land. While the temple will be constructed at the same place where it stood prior to demolition, the area apportioned for the shrine now stands increased.
In October 2020, it was reported that the DDA had formally accepted the allotment of 400 square metres of land for the proposed temple in Jahanpanah city forest in Tughlaqabad. It also recommended a change in land use from recreational to public and semi-public in lieu of religious use.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to get back acquired land

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Construction of new temple at an alternate location

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common and Private

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Government, Government of India

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

No

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Dalits, Sikhs

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Aditi Patil

Aditi is a freelance development researcher. She has a Master’s in Development Studies from the Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India. She has previously worked with WWF India on forest-based livelihoods and international wildlife trade. She has also worked on the Forest Rights Act in Dangs district in Gujarat. Her paper, “Forest-based livelihoods, Malki practice and Forest Rights Act in Gujarat: The case of Adivasis in the Dangs,” has been published in the book, Adivasis in India: Livelihoods, Resources and Institutions, by Bloomsbury India.

Show more work
Latest updates
Nagaon
Assam

Farmers in Assam resist land acquisition for solar plant, beaten by police

Surat
Gujarat

Surat farmers claim fertile land re-included in Gujarat's development plan without consent

Gadchiroli
Maharashtra

Villagers in Gadchiroli campaign to shut down Surjagarh iron ore mine

Biswanath
Assam

Encroachment, land dispute pose threat to newly designated Behali Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam

Krishnagiri
Tamil Nadu

Residents in Krishnagiri protest against takeover of land by SIPCOT

Lower Siang
Arunachal Pradesh

Tension in Arunachal's Lower Siang over Likabali-Durpai road project amid boundary disputes

Kanyakumari
Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu revives plan to construct Kanyakumari Port despite protests by fisherfolk

Koraput
Odisha

Bauxite mining at Mali Parbat in Koraput seeks to displace and disrupt local livelihoods

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to get back acquired land

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Religious/Sacred/Cultural value

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us