New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to order a status quo on alleged illegal demolition of Muslim places of worship and other structures at Gir Somnath in Gujarat.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was initially inclined to order the status quo. However, after Gujarat government counsel argued vehemently before the court, the bench said at this stage, no status quo order was required.
At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for a Muslim party Auliya-e-Deen Committee, said the properties were on the Waqf land and the court should direct the state government not to create any third-party rights on those.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, said that there was nothing in the name of the petitioner Auliya-E-Deen Committee and emphasised that the land in contention is government land.
The top court was hearing a contempt petition against Gujarat authorities for allegedly illegally demolishing residential and religious structures in the state despite an interim stay and without its prior nod.
Sibal said their argument is that this is government land and I can demolish the structures anytime I want. "Till next date, let the possession be only with the government," Justice Gavai said.
Mehta agreed with the court’s suggestion and contended that he will make a statement regarding it. Sibal said let there be an order of the court. "Solicitor General states that until further orders the possession of land shall remain with the government and shall not be allotted to any third party… We don't find it necessary to pass any interim order," said the bench, in its order.
It further said it will direct the Gujarat High Court to decide the matter within one month and till that this order will continue. The apex court made it clear that the pendency of this petition before it will not bar the high court from proceeding with the matter.
During the hearing, Sibal claimed that there were temples situated on the government land, but they were not demolished but action was taken against only Muslim places of worship. Sibal contended that heritage monuments, ancient dargahs and graveyards were subjected to demolitions. Opposing Sibal’s contention, Mehta said that only the structures which were encroaching on public lands were demolished and added that the petitioner was suppressing material information from the court.
Sibal insisted on granting a status quo order, however the bench was not keen. At this juncture, Justice Gavai orally said, "we can order restoration also." Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing another petitioner, contended that in 1903 the land was allotted to his client and there were documents to establish that.
