- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Seeks Gujarat...
Supreme Court Seeks Gujarat Authorities' Response On Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Dargah In Somnath
Debby Jain
12 Nov 2024 12:06 PM IST
The Supreme Court yesterday called for response on a contempt petition filed against Gujarat authorities, alleging illegal demolition of Pir Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah between September 27-28, without any prior notice and in violation of Court's stay order on demolitions.A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter. It has next been listed on December 2.It may be recalled...
The Supreme Court yesterday called for response on a contempt petition filed against Gujarat authorities, alleging illegal demolition of Pir Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah between September 27-28, without any prior notice and in violation of Court's stay order on demolitions.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter. It has next been listed on December 2.
It may be recalled that the Supreme Court stay order stated to have been violated by Gujarat authorities mandated that prior permission of the Court would be necessary to bulldoze structures, except those that are on public lands. The same was passed in a batch of petitions assailing authorities' taking of demolition actions against houses of persons accused of crimes, as a punitive measure. Orders stand reserved in the matter, but the stay on demolitions continues (in terms of the order whereby orders were reserved).
After the stay order was passed by the Court (on September 17), a contempt petition was filed by Summast Patni Musslim Jamat, alleging illegal demolition of Muslim religious and residential places by Gujarat authorities on September 28. Another petition challenged the Gujarat High Court order (October 3) which refused to order a status quo on the demolition of Muslim religious structures and houses in Somnath.
On October 25, State of Gujarat undertook before the Court that the lands in Gir Somnath, where demolition of structures was carried out, would remain with the government and not be allotted to any third parties till the next date of hearing in the matter.
In the present case, the petitioner states that the subject Dargah had great religious and spiritual sentiments attached to it and was protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. However, a huge police force arrived and demolished it without giving any fair opportunity of being heard.
"The Police officers gathered on 27.09.2024 itself and demolished the significant portion of the Dargah i.e. subject premises. Within the next 24 hours, a full-fledged demolition was carried out as they kicked the Mazar Sharif of the premises and also damaged the Quran Sharif."
Further, it is claimed that in order to prevent the demolition, people who were present at the Dargah lay down in front of the bulldozers. But, the police force subjected them to grave physical violence.
On the history of the subject area, the petitioner states that the Dargah is located in area reserved for public government purpose since 23.02.1947. It is registered in the name of Haji Mangroli Shah since 1922. The Income Tax Department exempted the petitioner from filing Income Tax on 23.02.1979. Subsequently, a letter was issued on 24.02.2005 by the Office of the Additional Archeologist, Department of Archeology, Gujarat declaring the Dargah as a State Protected Monument.
"the subject premises has been a religious place since the time of Rajshahi and is protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. However, the Learned Collector, Gir Somnath at Veraval has illegally and arbitrarily directed to revise the property card and the related notes entered therein and cancel it in complete violation of the Principle of Natural Justice vide order dated 27.09.2024."
Further, it is alleged that the order dated 27.09.2024 of the Collector cancelling the deed in favor of the petitioner was served on him on 29.09.2024 after the demolition of the entire Dargah.
The petition has been filed through AoR Pyoli.
Case Title: HAJI MANGROLISHA S HOUSE Versus D.D. JADEJA AND ORS., Diary No. 50311-2024