HP High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorised Gate from Government Land 300 Metres from Temple, Directs Reinstallation Near Temple
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a gate erected without permission on Government land 300 metres from a Shiv Temple unlawfully blocked a landowner's access and must be removed and repositioned near the temple.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla has directed the permanent removal of the shutters of an iron gate erected by a private individual on a Government-owned path in Village Mandhala, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan. Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, sitting singly, disposed of Sunil Kumar v. Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority and Anr. on 16 July 2026, restoring in substance the order that the Chief Executive Officer of the Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority (BBNDA) had passed on 16 June 2023 but then withdrawn on 10 August 2023. The judgment turns on the straightforward finding that an unauthorised structure on Government land, placed 300 metres from the temple it was purportedly meant to protect, serves no protective purpose while actively obstructing a neighbouring landowner's access to his property.
The Dispute: A Gate on a Government Path
Sunil Kumar is a permanent resident of Village Mandhala. His land is adjacent to Government land that also serves as the approach path to a Shiv Temple in the same village. Respondent No. 2, Sh. Amar Nath son of Sh. Gopal Chand, installed an iron gate on this Government-owned path at a point approximately 300 metres from the temple. The gate is also nearer to the petitioner's property than to the temple itself.
The path was constructed by BBNDA. Sunil Kumar complained that the gate, when closed, prevented him from reaching his own land. On 6 October 2022, he represented to the concerned authorities seeking removal of the obstruction.
The Assistant Town Planner, BBNDA, issued a show cause notice on 9 March 2023 under Section 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 to Respondent No. 2 for encroaching upon Government land by affixing the gate without permission and obstructing the thoroughfare. A further notice under Section 39(1) of the Act, dated 22 March 2023, directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the gate and restore the land to its earlier condition.
When no further action followed, the petitioner filed another representation on 10 May 2023. The Chief Executive Officer of BBNDA then passed an order on 16 June 2023 under Section 39(1)(6)(b) of the Act directing removal of the iron gate from its existing location and its reinstallation at a convenient site near the temple to protect the temple and its surroundings. That order was withdrawn by BBNDA on 10 August 2023. Sunil Kumar filed CWP No. 9804 of 2023 challenging the withdrawal.
Court-Constituted Resolution Committee
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court observed in an earlier order dated 6 August 2025 that amicable resolution would serve all parties better than adjudication, while also recording that “religion cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to subvert the legal process.”
When the matter came up on 14 October 2025, the learned Additional Advocate General, acting on instructions from the Chief Executive Officer, BBNDA, requested constitution of a Resolution Committee. The Court constituted the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, with the Superintendent of Police, Baddi, the Chief Executive Officer, BBNDA, Baddi, and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baddi, as members. The Committee was directed to associate the petitioner and other interested parties for an amicable resolution.
The Committee inspected the site, heard the affected parties and villagers present on the spot, and submitted its report dated 11 December 2025. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baddi, recommended that the gate structure be allowed to remain but that its shutters either be removed or permanently fixed in an open position so that vehicular traffic could move freely. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan, in a separate compliance affidavit, acknowledged the petitioner's grievance that his land is approximately 100 metres from the gate and that he frequently finds the shutters closed, and echoed the same recommendation.
How the Court Reasoned
The Court examined the documents on record, the site map at page 20 of the paper-book, and the Committee's report. It found several facts uncontested: the path is on Government land; the gate was installed unauthorisedly; the petitioner's property lies closer to the gate than the temple does; and the petitioner is periodically unable to reach his own land because of the gate's closure.
The Court accepted the concern raised by Senior Advocate Mr. Ashwani Sharma that even if the shutters were merely fixed open today, the risk of future closure — and consequent harassment — could not be ruled out so long as the gate remained at its current location. The gate at 300 metres from the temple premises, the Court held, serves no purpose of temple protection but directly obstructs the petitioner's right of access.
Turning to the withdrawn BBNDA order of 16 June 2023, the Court held it was “just and in accordance with law.” That order had directed relocation of the gate to a position near the temple, which would address both access concerns and any genuine security need for the temple. The subsequent withdrawal of that order on 10 August 2023 was therefore legally unsustainable.
The Court also recorded that if any gate is genuinely required for temple security, it must be installed near the temple, not on public Government land far removed from the temple where it infringes others' rights. The erection of a gate on Government land at that distance, the Court found, creates direct hindrance and unlawfully obstructs access.
Outcome
The Court disposed of the writ petition with two specific directions:
First, the shutters of the gate at its current location on the Government path shall be removed permanently, forthwith.
Second, if a gate is considered necessary, it may be installed only within 50 to 75 metres of the temple and only after obtaining all requisite sanctions and approvals in accordance with law. Any such reinstallation must not block the egress and ingress of Sunil Kumar to his property in any manner.
Respondent No. 1 — identified in the directions as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baddi, District Solan — is responsible for ensuring compliance. The Office of the Advocate General was directed to apprise the concerned authority of the order. All pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition also stand disposed of.