Minority Community Facing Difficulty In Enjoying Their Land: Dargah Tells Madras High Court Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row

The Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah, challenging a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar in Thiruparakundram Hills, told the Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Monday (December 15) that the minority community was facing difficulty in enjoying their land given to them in 1920. A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was hearing a batch of pleas, including those filed by the Dargah management, challenging a single judge's order directing the temple authorities to light the lamp at the stone pillar. For context, the single judge had said that the deepathoon(stone pillar) was not located in the area that belonged to the Muslims, and thus lighting the lamp would not affect the rights of the community.The State authorities also filed an appeal challenging the single judge's order in contempt plea on December 4th, wherein the judge quashed the prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC. Another set of Appeals also came up before the court challenging the single judge's order of December 9 in the contempt plea directing the appearance of Chief Secretary, ADGP, DCP and impleading the Union Home Secretary.Minority community put to difficulty to enjoy their landDuring the hearing, Senior Advocate T Mohan, appearing for the Dargah, referred to the animal sacrifice judgment , which ruled against allowing such practice at the hills. He said that the said didn't allow setting up of toilet, electricity supply, water supply in the land belonging to Dargah. He said that the animal sacrifice order did not permit prayer at Nellithope area (belonging to dargah) citing that it might affect the footfall of devotees going to Kasi Viswanathar temple."Now I can say that crowd is likely to occupy the pathway leading upto the Dargah...It can't be that minority community is put to so much difficulty to enjoy their land given to them in 1920 and daggers drawn at every stage to defend ourselves against these incursion by them," he said.Dargah not given enough time to respondMohan also said that the Dargah was initially not made a party but was impleaded later. He said that the Dargah was not given proper opportunity to represent its case. The court orally said that it's not concerned with any procedural issues with the single judge's order. However, Mohan said that even procedural unfairness can vitiate the order.The court orally said, "You take it that all those aspects would be considered. You need not waste time on that. Other seniors have pointed it out. What we now have to look at is whether there's any legal error." However, Mohan said that he was taking exception to the fast tracking of proceedings.Mohan said that as per the writ rules, any respondent would be given 8 weeks to file a counter affidavit, adding that the Dargah, which was impleaded as a party, was entitled to 8 weeks' time to file a response.Mohan said, "The learned judge thought it fit to restrict it to 3 days. It's arguable whether he can (restrict) and secondly, the power must be reflected at least in the docket order which directs me to file a counter".Mohan also said that though he had raised an objection to maintainability of the plea, he was not heard and was cut off from the video conferencing facility itself.He said that the single judge visited the place and gave an open invitation to all parties, but Dargah was not a party since it was not part of the litigation on that day.There has to be real and not sentimental interestMohan said that the single judge set up a new case which was not found in anyone's pleadings. He said that it was nobody's case that Dargah was attempting to take over. He said that the judge said he'll take note of pleadings by others to sustain the representation since the petitioner's representation was poorly worded."You can't use someone else's representation to sustain a representation. That's post facto justification. The petitioner in his pleadings has mentioned in two places at 15 meters and 20 meters. This controversy of distance is not something that should've engaged the court. Judge simply goes saying it's a different area. That's not the point. It's not for you to come and assert the right. It's for the temple to take an appropriate decision. There should be a real, tangible interest. Not sentimental interested. Then all the Hindus of Tamil Nadu can file a case saying they're interested in Ayodhya. Where will it stop? We've to draw a line so the courts are not flooded," he said. Mohan said that the Single judge had said that the opposition (to lighting lamp) was at the instance of certain vested interests. To this, Mohan said that he takes strong objections.Vested interests want to stir the potMohan further said that the petitioner claimed to be a member of Hindu Makkal Katchi but did not disclose it in the affidavit."We find it from his Twitter handle that he claims this, and we have stated it in the counter. He says give police protection...

Minority Community Facing Difficulty In Enjoying Their Land: Dargah Tells Madras High Court Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row

Upasana Sajeev

Tags