Sure nothing wrong in demolishing any such Hindu Temple or Muslim Mosque or Christian Church etc if they encroach the national highway & allot another piece of land to such religious societies for building these at a suitable place were there is no infringement or encroachment of land. It’s the executive government of the individual state where such land encroachment is taking place to act on this, law will be on there side for any such executive action.
2007-07-16 01:09:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by vijay m Indian Lawyer 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
This is a genuin issue. But we cannot single out the worship places of one or the other sections of the soctiety. A very pragmatic and practical policy should be worked out with the relegious heads of all sections and then it should be applied without any pregudice or deviation.
For example, such encroachments can be shifted to another location with allotment of equal land area and cost of construction,maintaining at the same time a harmonial atmosphere.
I am sure if we have the right approach and understanding there will be no need to demolish any worship place and all the heads of different sections can join to do the KAR-SEVA.
2007-07-16 08:43:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by brij_26pal 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well..well...most of the encroachment is done by these small temples on the roadsides, but what about hawkers? Also, think about the parking of huge goods carriers, trucks & tempos on highways, etc.??? The hawkers as well as, the lorries create a lot of congestion & the policemen do nothing to stop it.
If you are not aware, the municipalities had demolished more than 150 roadside temples in Mumbai during 2004-05.
Think about the lakhs of people encroaching vast areas of land in the midst of the cities living in hutments, jhuggies & jhopdees. The law must be enforced strongly against encroachment of public property of all kinds.
It's better that we deal with the humans first & then with the gods or temples.
2007-07-16 08:15:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by presidentofasia 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, ready fabrication flyover technology is so easy & advanced now that u need not touch these temples, our heritage structures.
Five years ago , 57 flyovers were constructed in Mumbai using prefabricated blocks in very short span of time to solve traffic problems & many fast routes have been so made by making roads on pillar & girders. That era is gone when lands were being vacated to make highways rather now elevated expressways are being made which can withstand speeds of cars even 150 - 200 km per hour. Elevated highways are stronger & easier to maintain too. In gulf countries , many such expressways are elevated ones over land & water too. So, this question becomes redundent.
2007-07-16 09:36:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Whatever encroaches our development should be demolished. be it temples or mosques, houses or shops. But one thing should be kept in mind . development means both economic and social, Nothing should be done which affects peace and tranquillity
2007-07-16 08:20:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by niraj 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Certainly demolish all unauthorised constructions be they religious (any religion) structures or otherwise. But your question seems to be put with ulterior motives perhaps to foment some heated debate and to encourage hatred.
2007-07-17 06:02:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
LAW should be one for all...when u selectively target then it creates a law & order problem....ALL ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENTS..wether temple or mosque or others should not be allowed to come up & if they have sprung up then they MUST be demolished.
2007-07-16 08:19:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by noname273 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes definitely,not only temples but all encroachments without fear or favour.
2007-07-16 09:42:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by balaGraju 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, u should, but pls. don't try to demolish religious places of other religions. that's is against our culture.
2007-07-16 08:17:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by yuvraj 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
you are not correct in naming only one religion. if you would have told - all encroachings- i would have agreed with you. your statement gives rise to hatred!
2007-07-16 08:25:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by sristi 5
·
0⤊
0⤋