Today, the Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging demolition drive carried out by railway authorities near the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura.
While rejecting a plea to grant interim protection by extending an earlier status quo order, a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti directs Petitioner to approach Civil Court over the ownership of the disputed land.
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 substantive relief 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."
Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen submitted that 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.
"The railway authorities seek time from the lower court saying that they needed instructions. Time is granted till August 14, when an application for an interim stay was also supposed to be considered. On that day, the court is 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 he was granted. Now, we can dispose of this petition," said the Court.
"The whole suit would be rendered infructuous if they start moving the residents out," Sen argued.
The Court directs filing for an injunction in the lower court challenging the residents being dispossessed of and evicted from their homes.
To this, 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.
Justice Bose categorically said that 'parallel proceedings' cannot 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."
Sen also made an emotive 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," said Justice Bose.
"To facilitate or enable a party to move, or if the party has already moved the trial court to get an order, a writ court ought not to be passing interim orders. This is the observation in the judgment," Justice Bhatti explained.
"Go to the suit court," Justice Bose said again before assuring, "We will say that nothing has been said on the merits of the case. Let us dispose it of. We will protect your interests."
Finally, the bench pronounced -
"In the present petition, a restraint order was asked for in relation to a large-scale eviction of persons who in view of the Union of India were unauthorised occupants of certain land belonging to the railways. On behalf of the petitioner, the title of the Union of India is questioned and it is argued that people residing on such lands will become owners by adverse possession. But that is a personal right that cannot be determined in a writ petition brought by one of the occupiers and has to be determined on the basis of evidence.''
''The admitted position is that suits are pending, instituted by occupants or residents of said land before the jurisdictional civil court. The relief claimed in this petition, in our opinion, is better examined in a suit. As proceedings are pending, we dispose of this petition giving liberty to the petitioners to apply for relief before the suit court. We make it clear that we have made no comment on the merit of the matter and all points are left open to be determined by the suit court."
A three-judge panel granted temporary relief to the residents after Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen argued that the ongoing demolition might render the petition moot. Sen highlighted that during the closure of courts in Uttar Pradesh, around 100 houses were demolished out of approximately 200, leaving only 70-80 standing. The bench responded by issuing a notice, putting a ten-day hold on any changes to the subject premises, and scheduling a follow-up after a week.
Case Details -Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy