Delhi HC Imposes Fine on Man for Making Lord Hanuman Co-Litigant in Property Dispute

The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on an individual who made Lord Hanuman a co-litigant in an attempt to unlawfully acquire private property. Justice C Hari Shankar remarked on the unusual nature of the case, stating, “I never thought that God would, one day, be a litigant before me. This appears, however, thankfully, to be a case of divinity by proxy.”

The case involved a plea to retain part of a private land under the claim that it housed a public temple. The court clarified that the right to worship at a private temple does not automatically extend to the public unless the owner makes such rights available or the temple transforms into a public one over time.

The plea argued that since there was a public temple on the property, it belonged to Lord Hanuman, and the man involved in the case claimed to be the Lord’s next friend and a worshipper. However, the court dismissed the appeal, describing it as a “rank collusion with an intent to grab” the property. It concluded that there was collusion between the individual, Ankit Mishra, and the current possessors of the land to prevent its transfer to another party.

The court outlined the history of the dispute, noting that the defendants (current possessors) claimed adverse possession of the land and demanded Rs 11 lakh to vacate. Although the plaintiff (the other party) paid Rs 6 lakh, the defendants did not vacate the property.

In response, Mishra, as a third party, filed an objection claiming that there was a public temple on the property dedicated to Lord Hanuman, and therefore, the land belonged to the deity. He argued that he was entitled to protect Lord Hanuman’s interest as his next friend, stating, “There is a public temple on the property dedicated to Lord Hanuman. The land belongs to Lord Hanuman.”

The court dismissed the appeal, directing Mishra to pay Rs 1 lakh as costs. It clarified that Mishra would be solely responsible for paying the costs, despite Lord Hanuman being a co-litigant in the case.