Supreme Court order said that further demolition is restrained till disposal of the proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act, 1972.(Sonu Mehta/HT PHOTO)
Supreme Court order said that further demolition is restrained till disposal of the proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act, 1972.(Sonu Mehta/HT PHOTO)

Supreme Court stays demolition of Dargah Mubarak Khan Shaheed in Gorakhpur

The division bench, comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari, have also issued notice to the state in the issue.
By hindustantimes.com | Written by Deepali Sharma
UPDATED ON MAR 08, 2021 09:03 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a stay on any further demolition of the Dargah Mubarak Khan Shaheed in Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur till the pending proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act, 1972, have been disposed of. "In the meantime, further demolition is restrained till disposal of the proceedings pending under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972," the top court’s order read.

The stay on the demolition comes as the court was orally informed by the petitioner—Dargah Mubarak Khan Shaheed—that it had received a letter dated March 8 from the secretary of the Gorakhpur Development Authority (GDA) requesting the city’s superintendent of police to deploy a force and begin the demolition work from Tuesday, reported LiveLaw.

The division bench, comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari, have also issued notice to the state in the issue. The special leave petition on the behalf of Dargah Mubarak Khan Shaheed has been filed against Allahabad High Court judgement of February 10, which dismissed the petitioner's request of declaring the demolition as void and prohibited authorities for further demolition, as reported by LiveLaw.

The petitioner in the plea has said that the idgah has a tomb of Saint Mubarak Khan Shaheed and a mosque on the southern side of the tomb, which has been there for a long time and was used for prayers and festivities. According to the petitioner, the use of the properties was in 1959 disturbed by the principal of Government Normal School after which egress and ingress were stopped, leading to the filing of a suit before munsif's court. One of the relief sought that time against the defendants, including the Uttar Pradesh state and Gorakhpur collector, was to open the eastern gate of the Brijman compound for the egress and ingress. The suit went in the plaintiff's favour, LiveLaw cited the petitioner as saying.

Also Read | No major report of discordant results reported by Covid-19 testing labs: Govt

The plea said that the trial court in its order has said that Muslims and the plaintiff have the right to use the land near the mosque and idgah for offering prayers sans any interference. However, a show-cause notice was later issued to the alleged unauthorised occupants, including the petitioner, to state why the eviction order cannot be passed, after the sub-divisional officer in an order in June 2019 proposed to initiate proceedings under section 4 of the UP Public Premises Act 1972 and asked the Subordinate Revenue Authorities to enquire and make a report on the matter.

The plea also claimed that the Gorakhpur Development Authority without any notice to the petitioner began the demolition work and treated its possession as unauthorised. The authority after the demolition of a part of the property also asked the petitioner to produce another document to prove its right even after referring to the trial court order of 1963. The petitioner had then filed an application before the sub-divisional officer, LiveLaw cited the plea.

The plea, as LiveLaw said, also had the mention of the appeal to Allahabad High Court for quashing the demolition. The high court had ordered the stay on demolition till next hearing, however, through its impugned order of February 10, had dismissed the case stating that in pith and substance the petitioner wants the execution of judgement and decree of the trial court order dated September 1963. The high court said the remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil suit for the grant of injunction or file for the execution of the decree.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP