Plea In Gujarat High Court Against Demolition Of Muslim Religious Structures, Residential Places In Gir Somnath; Order Reserved

The Manager of the Auliya Auliya-e-Deen Committee–a Waqf, urged the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (October 1) to direct "status quo" in respect of the state authorities alleged demolition of Muslim places of worship including mosques and graves, which was carried out on September 28 in Gir Somnath.  

After hearing all the parties, a single judge bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen reserved its verdict and said, "For Orders On Thursday". 

The plea filed by the waqf–represented by its Mutawalli (manager/trustee), challenges the "grossly illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction" action of the authorities, particularly the Collector, Gir Somnath in conducting "illegal overnight demolition" of centuries old Muslim religious places of worship including Masjid (mosque), Eidgaah, Dargahs (shrine), graves as well as "residential places" of Mujawars (attendant) of the Dargahs. The plea claims that the action was carried out without issuing any notices for demolition and without granting any opportunity of hearing.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Mihir Thakore submitted that there was no notice issued by the authorities in respect of the "dargahs" and the notice was confined to only structures located outside the dargahs. 

He submitted that the name of the occupants of the demolished structures was there on the records, and the first course of action prior to demolition should have been to show that the residents were "unauthorised occupants". He submitted that the requisite procedure mandated under the Bombay Land Revenue Code had not been followed prior to demolition. 

"My name maybe wrongfully there but today I'm an occupant as shown in records...Not a single notice given for dargah and qabrastan (grave); notice was only given for huts. But despite that everything has been demolished. Dargah has also been removed. Ancient monuments have been demolished...First there has to be decision whether I am an unauthorized occupant or not...before they take action there has to be notice under Section 79A there has to be a hearing and thereafter there has to be an order which is followed by a 202 (section) eviction order. There is nothing on record to show that any such action has been taken. Can a high handed action be taken to destroy things?," Thakore said. 

Meanwhile the State opposed the grant of status quo, submitting that the demolition action had been completed. The counsel appearing for the state authorities submitted fencing had been done and the possession was with the State. He further said that the property cards of the lands in question reflected that these were public lands. 

The plea claims that the demolition action was carried out despite pending proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal and a pending revision proceedings before the Collector, Gir Somnath. 

Case title: Auliya-e-Deen Committee, Junagadh Through its Mutawalli Ismailbhai Rahimbhai Che v/s State of Gujarat & Others