File photo of demolition of illegal settlements near Somnath temple
New Delhi: The Muslim side has not got relief from the Supreme Court in the case of bulldozer action on illegal buildings near Somnath temple in Gir Somnath district. The court said that this is government land and its possession will remain with the government till further orders. At the same time, the Supreme Court has stopped the Gujarat government from allotting the encroachment-free land to any third party. This land was vacated after a large-scale encroachment campaign.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan recorded the statement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, that the possession of the land will remain with the government till further orders and will not be allotted to any third party.
Court did not give stay order
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan did not pass any stay order on the land where the bulldozer action took place after hearing the arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government. Counsel for the Muslim parties had requested for passing of an interim status quo order. The court said that in view of this matter we do not find it necessary to pass any interim order.
Muslim side did not get relief from High Court
The bench was hearing a petition against the Gujarat High Court order which had rejected the order to maintain status quo with regard to the demolition of Muslim religious structures. The Supreme Court is also hearing a contempt petition against Gujarat authorities alleging illegal demolition of residential and religious structures in the state despite an interim stay and without prior permission.
Next hearing will be held on November 11
The next hearing on this petition will be on November 11. At the beginning of the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Aulia-e-Din Committee of Junagadh, said that structures belonging to a particular community have been demolished but temples built on government land there have been spared. He claimed that the protected monuments were demolished on the grounds that they were near a water body – the Arabian Sea. The Solicitor General opposed these arguments, saying that only those structures that were demolished were built on encroached government land and were not protected under law.
(input language)
