New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday did not pass any order on staying the demolition drive being conducted by railways near mathura">Krishnajanam Bhoomi in Mathura and asked the petitioner to approach the civil court with his petition.
A bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose noted that suits related to the present petition are pending before the jurisdiction of civil court.
The court remarked that relief claimed in this petition, in our opinion, is better examined in a suit that has been instituted by occupants or residents of said land before a jurisdictional civil court.
"As proceedings are pending, we dispose of this petition with liberty to petitioners to apply for relief before suit court," the court said.
In the last hearing, the top court refused to extend the status quo on the demolition drive by Railways near mathura">Krishnajanam Bhoomi in Mathura. On August 16 the Supreme Court directed to maintain the status quo for ten days on the demolition drive being carried out by Railway near mathura">Krishnajanam Bhoomi in Mathura.
In today's hearing, the petitioner sought the status quo on the demolition drive. But the court asked the petitioner why he did not take steps before the trial court after the top court granted him protection for 10 days.
The top court said that claims for adverse possession etc. will have to be decided by the lower court.
Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen appeared for the petitioner. The petitioners were represented by advocates Radha Tarkar and Aaron Shaw. While Railways was represented by advocate Rajat Nair.
Railway authorities have earlier apprised the Supreme Court that demolition of the encroached portion of the Railway's land near mathura">Krishnajanam Bhoomi in Mathura has already taken place.
Railway also said that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed from the top court that the eviction proceedings in the subject properties were undertaken pursuant to compliance with the due process of law as contemplated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPE Act).
It further said that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands.
Railway authorities submitted that the land in question falls on the side of the Mathura to Vrindavan railway track, which was a pre-independent era "meter gauge track. Further, Mathura to Vrindavan is an important pilgrimage center having very high footfall.
Railway submitted that due to the absence of a broad-gauge track in the said division, the pilgrims who intended to visit Vrindavan were compelled to change trains at Mathura Junction Railway Station.
It is submitted that due to increased demand for direct trains connecting major stations of the country to Mathura and Vrindavan, the respondent authorities undertook a major project of converting this pre-independent era 'meter gauge to broad gauge making infrastructure feasible for running of high-speed/express trains on the route.
Railway submitted that the petitioner is merely acting as a busybody and a meddlesome interloper in the eviction proceedings duly undertaken by the Estate Officer of the railway authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPE Act) to evict illegal encroachers and trespassers, who have illegally occupied railway land and have built illegal construction over the same.
The intervention of the petitioner, who claims himself to be a leader involved in local politics, in the said PPE proceedings, is thus for some ostensible and extraneous reasons, the Railway said.
In the petition, the petitioner has sought to stay the process of demolishment by the railway authorities in Mathura.
The petitioner filed a civil suit before the Civil Court Senior division, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh seeking a permanent injunction against the railway authority but in the meantime on August 9 2023 the demolition work commenced. The same was challenged on the very next day August 10.
The Counsel for the Railway had submitted on 10th Aug that he does not have any instruction of the demolition and accordingly submitted before the Civil Court that he would come with instruction, the petitioner said.
The petitioner has tried their level best to pursue the matter before the Civil Court and the High Court but the courts were closed in mid of August, so they could not pursue the matter there and as such are compelled to approach the top court and urge the apex court to issue direction to stay demolition where they have been staying since 1880.
The petitioner called the action of the respondent of demolishing the house absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ANI)
