Demolitions Near Krishna Janmabhoomi | Supreme Court Says It Can’t Decide Title, Asks Petitioner To Move Civil Court

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea against a recent demolition drive carried out by railway authorities near the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura on Monday. While it declined a request to grant interim protection by extending an earlier status quo order, a three-judge bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti permitted the residents sought to be evicted to approach the local court currently hearing a suit over the ownership of the disputed land. Although, on August 16, the court initially directed status quo to be maintained for ten days with respect to the demolition drive, last Friday, it refused to extend the order after being informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the eviction process was completed. Petitioner Yakub Shah’s locus standi was also doubted by the railway authorities during Friday’s hearing. In an affidavit, the Centre accused him of making ‘shocking claims of victimisation’ despite his property not being located on the railway land and not being affected by the eviction notices served to the other ‘illegal occupants’ and ‘trespassers’. The railways denied that the demolition drive was carried out without following due process, calling these allegations nothing but ‘sensational assertions’. Not only this, it also argued that the petitioner tried to link this exercise with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in an effort to give the demolitions a ‘communal overtone’ and provoke an ‘instantaneous response of outrage’ from the court.On the other hand, the residents have set up an 'adverse possession' claim, besides arguing that the respondent-authorities invoking the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was illegal inasmuch as they had no title over the land at all.Today, the Supreme Court bench questioned Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, appearing for the petitioner, on whether its continued intervention was warranted. "In terms of substantive relief, what is left to be gotten through this Article 32 petition? He can seek leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and be brought in, in a representative capacity. He can then fight that suit."Sen informed the court that an Order I Rule 8 application had already been filed in the suit pending before a civil judge over the ownership of the disputed land and urged the top court to grant interim protection against further demolition. He said -"The railway authorities sought time from the lower court saying that they needed instructions. Time was granted till August 14, when an application for an interim stay was also supposed to be considered. On that day, the court was closed. Taking advantage of this, they started destroying homes. While the suit for title was pending, these homes were destroyed.""He came to this court asking for breathing time, which was granted. Now, we can dispose of this petition," Justice Bose said."The whole suit would be rendered infructuous if they start moving the residents out," Sen argued. When Justice Bose suggested filing for an injunction in the lower court against the residents being dispossessed of and evicted from their homes, the senior counsel pointed out that such an application had already been filed and was scheduled to be heard on the day on which the railway authorities started demolishing houses in the area. The bench, however, was not persuaded. Justice Bose categorically said that 'parallel proceedings' could not be run by the Supreme Court -"The title will have to be decided by the suit court. The petitioner has his whole remedy in front of the suit court, and then provisions for appeal. He may be entitled to damages also. For all that will have to be decided by the suit court. We cannot run parallel proceedings along with that court. It's a tall case that you have become owners by adverse possession. For that, you will have to establish a very strong prime facie case. A writ court is not the proper forum for that."At this juncture, the senior counsel appealed to the court to grant the residents protection from further demolitions being carried out by the railway authorities till an application for appropriate relief is filed before the civil court. "There should be some protection in the meantime," Sen strongly contended."We do not think that can be given," Justice Bose replied. Justice Kumar added, "The reason we entertained this is because of your plea that the courts in Uttar Pradesh were not working that day due to an advocates' strike. Now what is the situation? Why can the petitioner follow his remedy before the trial court? Why has he not taken steps before the trial court after we granted him protection for ten days?"Sen also made an emotional appeal to the bench. "Please consider the people whose houses were demolished. They are still there because they have nowhere else to go," he said."We have all sympathies for them. But there are procedural aspects. There is a specific prohibition," ...

Demolitions Near Krishna Janmabhoomi | Supreme Court Says It Can’t Decide Title, Asks Petitioner To Move Civil Court

Awstika Das

Tags