Key Takeaways
- The Ajmer Development Authority demolished an illegal Christian prayer house in Rajasthan’s Ajmer.
- The prayer house was constructed on government land without permission.
- John Singh Rawat, a Christian, was found to be the person behind the construction of the illegal Christian prayer house.
- The demolition sparked controversy, with people present at the spot during the demolition.
On Wednesday, February 28, in the Hathi Khera area of Ajmer, Rajasthan, the Ajmer Development Authority destroyed a multi-storey religious centre which was operating there. The centre had been constructed on government land, which had been occupied illegally. As per the villagers living nearby, religious activities had been going on in the centre for many years now.
The government land, illegally occupied by John Singh Rawat, was used to construct a high-walled structure with a sound-proof recording studio in the basement. Religious insignia like the cross were found, along with Christian prayers on the walls and mattresses and eating plates in the cellar. People from Jharkhand and other states were present when the ADA reached the centre.
The demolition of the illegally constructed structure started at around 11 AM on Wednesday, and carried on till late at night. It was a day earlier to this that the police had asked the illegal occupants to remove their belongings from the spot, but they did not do so. After the ADA team reached the spot, on Wednesday morning, they were blocked from entering the centre, and even when the team asked the occupants to let them in, the latter did not budge. This was when the ADA team members entered the structure forcefully, after which the four walls were demolished.
One woman also tried to create hindrance in the action being taken, after which she was taken away from the spot by female cops.
ADA’s investigation had revealed that the culprit, John Singh Rawat, had illegally occupied the large swathe of ADA land, and had constructed the illegal structure. On the basis of this information, the ADA had sent him a show-cause notice, replying to which, John, in his defence, had stated that he had not occupied government land and had not constructed any illegal structures.
He had added that this land was his ancestral property, which was being used by him for the last 40 years. But he was unable to produce the documents which could prove his ownership of the land. The land has been registered under the ADA’s name.
