Prince Apartments in Patparganj is a sprawling residential complex in East Delhi with 223 flats. Residents at the seven-year-old complex are sharply divided over the issue of the temple. Some of the residents pooled in money to build a community place of worship within the premises. This was strongly opposed by at least two flat owners, who approached the courts and prompted DDA to raze the patently illegal construction.

While the residents claim that the demolition was an act of ``sheer high-handedness'', senior DDA officials point out that they were merely following the rules of the land and the court orders.

The controversy over the legality of the temple dates back to 1995, when about 100 residents of Prince Apartments pooled in money to start work on structure.

One of the residents, Ram Saroop, however, objected to the site of the temple: it was just behind his apartment and would obstruct his right of way.Saroop filed a petition in the court of the the Civil Judge A K Mahandiratta against P.L. Kapoor and Prakash Udeshi -- both members of the Prince Temple Nirman Samiti (PTNS) -- the Prince housing society and the DDA.

He claimed that the PTNS had not taken him and several others into confidence before starting the construction. While the PTNS claims that it has more than 80 percent of occupants as signatories to the construction of a temple, Saroop says that it is not true. Of the 223, flats in the complex, only 150 are occupied at present.

The Civil Judge issued a stay on the construction of the temple in February 1997, and asked both sides to maintain status quo. The final order on the petition is yet to be issued.

In April 1997, another resident, Navneet Diwedi -- who owns an apartment on a floor above Saroop's -- filed a petition in the Delhi High Court on the same issue. He alleged that the temple was being constructed on a plot of land in the corner of the housing complex, which was supposed to kept as open space as per the original plan.

The High Court passed an order on March 12 this year, directing the DDA to perform its duties and statutory functions, and submit a compliance report within two weeks. The DDA counsel had submitted before the court that the PTNS members had not replied to a show-cause notice, issued on May 7, 1997, despite repeated reminders.

In their order, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice C.K. Mahajan observed: ``Surely, the DDA is not powerless to take appropriate action and perform its statutory functions, if no response comes to the show-cause notice.''Following the High Court order, a DDA team accompanied by the local police demolished the partially constructed temple on April 7.

Prakash Udeshi, secretary of PTNS, claims that the demolition was unfortunate as the DDA team had not only pulled down the structure, but had taken away the deity as well. He, however, admits that the construction was started without any sanction from the DDA.

``But the DDA had leased this land to the co-operative society for 99 years, making us the rightful owners of this complex. We were not encroaching on anyone else's land,'' says Udeshi.

The DDA, on the other hand, say that the construction was illegal even if the land had been leased. ``Each member of the co-operative has a right only over his or her property, the rest of the land is still under DDA supervision as we have to conform to the Delhi Master Plan,'' says DDA Land Commissioner, U S Jolly.

Another DDA official adds: ``Even when additional constructions like a police chowki or a milk booth are allowed, prior permission must be taken from the DDA. It is fast becoming a fashion to encroach land by building places of worship.''