E-Paper
Demolition near Krishna Janmabhoomi: SC refuses to extend status quo order against railways
The Supreme Court has refused to extend the stay on a demolition drive near Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi. The Railways said the petitioner had no locus standi as he was not affected by the demolition and did not reside in the disputed area. The Railways alleged that the petitioner tried to link the demolition to a legal battle related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi. The court has directed the petitioner to respond to the Railways' allegations. The demolition was carried out to vacate land for the conversion of the line between Mathura and Vrindavan from narrow gauge to broad gauge.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to extend the stay on a demolition drive at a railway land near Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi after it was informed that no unauthorised constructions were left to be brought down.
The top court also questioned the locus standi of petitioner Yakub Shah, who challenged the demolition exercise at Nai Basti, after the Railways said he was not among those affected and does not reside in the disputed area.
The Railways also alleged that the petitioner tried to link the demolition activity to a legal battle related to the “disputed” Krishna Janmabhoomi, which is located adjacent to the Shahi Eidgah mosque.
“There will be no further extension of the interim order passed on August 16,” a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said, as it posted the matter for Monday and directed Shah to respond to the Railways’ allegations that crucial facts were suppressed by him while approaching the top court.
On August 16, the top court had ordered status quo on the drive for a period of 10 days after the aggrieved residents complained that a civil suit filed by them is pending consideration before a Mathura court.
However, on August 14, Prashashti Srivastava, public relations officer for Agra Division, North Central Railways, said the demolition drive was completed and a total of 135 houses were razed in two phases on grounds of encroachment. He said the land was being vacated to transform the line between Mathura and Vrindavan from narrow gauge to broad gauge.
Appearing for the Railways, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta raised questions over the petition. “It is an admitted position that the present eviction drive does not even remotely pertain to any property of the petitioner. He has filed a suit in the representative capacity. The petitioner has deliberately and willfully suppressed the fact that his property is not the subject matter of the eviction drive undertaken by the Railways under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971,” he said.
The Railways said the petitioner tried to make “false assertions” and “sensational” claims by saying the drive was carried out without following due procedure.
“This (demolition) has been linked to a disputed religious premises to give the action taken by respondent a communal overtone,” the Railways said, adding that this was done to “outrage” the court for the purpose of obtaining interim relief.
The Railways was referring to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple dispute where Hindu litigants are laying claim to 13.37 acres of land around the Shahi Idgah mosque as the birthplace of Hindu deity Krishna. Multiple suits have been filed in different courts of Mathura, demanding that the mosque, which abuts the temple, be removed and the land returned to the temple Trust.
The Railways said a detailed hearing was given to nearly 135 occupants sought to be evicted pursuant to which fresh eviction notices were issued in June. In these entire proceedings, the petitioner’s property was not involved, it said.
“Pursuant to the eviction notices, demolition of the encroached portion of Railway’s land has already taken place. The instant writ petition has become infructuous and on this ground is liable to be dismissed,” it said in its affidavit.
The Railways accused the petitioner of misleading the court, which amounted to “grossest abuse of Article 32” of the Constitution, which allows the top court to issue writs to enforce fundamental rights.
Pulling up the petitioner, the bench said: “You are not on railway land. It seems we should introduce a class action suit for contradicting PILs filed before the same bench,” it said.
Senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, who appeared for Shah, said: “I will satisfy this court by Monday. Railways has nowhere shown it is the owner of the land in question. There is a suit filed by the residents pending on this issue.”
