Demolitions Near Krishna Janmabhoomi | Supreme Court Says It Can’t Decide Title, Asks Petitioner To Move Civil Court

Although, on August 16, the court initially directed status quo to be maintained for ten days with respect to the demolition drive, last Friday, it refused to extend the order after being informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the eviction process was completed.

Petitioner Yakub Shah’s locus standi was also doubted by the railway authorities during Friday’s hearing. In an affidavit, the Centre accused him of making ‘shocking claims of victimisation’ despite his property not being located on the railway land and not being affected by the eviction notices served to the other ‘illegal occupants’ and ‘trespassers’. The railways denied that the demolition drive was carried out without following due process, calling these allegations nothing but ‘sensational assertions’. Not only this, it also argued that the petitioner tried to link this exercise with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in an effort to give the demolitions a ‘communal overtone’ and provoke an ‘instantaneous response of outrage’ from the court.

On the other hand, the residents have set up an 'adverse possession' claim, besides arguing that the respondent-authorities invoking the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was illegal inasmuch as they had no title over the land at all.

Today, 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 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."

Sen informed 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. He said -

"The railway authorities sought time from the lower court saying that they needed instructions. Time was granted till August 14, when an application for an interim stay was also supposed to be considered. On that day, the court was 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 was granted. Now, we can dispose of this petition," Justice Bose said.

"The whole suit would be rendered infructuous if they start moving the residents out," Sen argued. When Justice Bose suggested filing for an injunction in the lower court against the residents being dispossessed of and evicted from their homes, the senior 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. 

The bench, however, was not persuaded. Justice Bose categorically said that 'parallel proceedings' could not 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."

At this juncture, the senior counsel appealed to the court to grant the residents protection from further demolitions being carried out by the railway authorities till an application for appropriate relief is filed before the civil court. "There should be some protection in the meantime," Sen strongly contended.

"We do not think that can be given," Justice Bose replied. 

Justice Kumar added, "The reason we entertained this is because of your plea that the courts in Uttar Pradesh were not working that day due to an advocates' strike. Now what is the situation? Why can the petitioner follow his remedy before the trial court? Why has he not taken steps before the trial court after we granted him protection for ten days?"

Sen also made an emotional 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," Justice Bose said, citing a 1952 judgment holding that high courts could not grant only stand-alone interim relief in the exercise of its Article 226 powers without determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or other similar directions could be issued. In other words, interim relief could be granted, according to this ruling of the Supreme Court, only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief that may be available to the party on the final determination of their rights in a suit or proceeding.

"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."

Background

On August 9, the government began a demolition drive in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura, reportedly razing as many as 135 houses in the Nai Basti – a settlement along the railway track in the backyard of the Krishna Janmabhoomi. These houses were marked as illegal encroachments on government land and a team from the railways, along with the district administration, and police conducted the exercise, which has now been concluded according to reports.

Railway authorities have sought to defend this move by citing a plan to convert the 21 km stretch from Mathura to Vrindavan from narrow to broad gauge to facilitate the operation of trains like Vande Bharat. But, the residents have cried foul. During a three-day respite period granted to allow residents of the settlement to move out with their belongings, some of them approached a local court for a stay on the demolition drive. However, the matter could not be finally decided because of a strike called by lawyers in Uttar Pradesh after a lawyer was shot dead.

Under these circumstances, local resident Yakub Shah filed a writ petition under Article 32, in which he sought an urgent hearing. Shah has alleged that the demolition was carried out in an area that has a predominantly Muslim population even as a challenge against eviction notices issued in June was pending before the local court in Mathura. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud agreed to list the petition for hearing on Wednesday, August 16.

The Nai Basti is located along a railway track near the Krishna Janmabhoomi. Multiple suits and petitions are pending in various courts of the country, including the Supreme Court, over the ownership of the land on which the adjoining Shahi Eidgah mosque is built. Hindu parties have claimed that this mosque was constructed by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing Hindu temples. Their pleas seeking the removal of the mosque have fanned communal tensions in the area.

Recently, the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust has moved the Supreme Court praying for a scientific survey of the premises of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

Case Details

Yakub Shah v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 887 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order