LUCKNOW (PTI): In a significant judgment the Allahabad High Court Dec.11 struck down notifications of the former Kalayan Singh government acquiring 2.77 acres of land around the disputed Ramjanambhumi- Babrimasjid structure at Ayodhya in October last.
The much-awaited judgment was delivered by a special three judge bench of the north Indian state Uttar Pradesh’s capital Lucknow high court constituted to go into the validity of two notifications which were challenged by a batch of writ petitions.
The judges justice S.C.Mathur justice Brijesh Kumar and justice S.H.Abbas Raza who delivered separate judgment’s unanimously quashed the notifications dated Oct.7 and 10, 1991 but gave differing reasons for coming to their conclusion.
The three-line operative portion of the judgment read out by the judges amidst tight security said “for the reasons recorded in our respective opinions we allow the writ petitions with costs and quash the impugned notifications dated Oct.7 & 10, 1991.”
The Indian Supreme Court had earlier this year directed the U.P. government not to allow any construction either temporary or permanent on the acquired land till the high court decided the acquisition case.
In his 150 page judgment justice Mathur who headed the bench held that the acquisition was “vitiated since a substantial portion of the acquired land was the subject matter of regular suits already pending since long and to which the state government was also a party.”
Under the notifications the then BJP government had acquired parts of four plots situated in the Ramkot area of the disputed complex.
The notifications mentioned development of tourism provision of amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya as the purpose for which the particular land had been acquired.
Justice Mathur held that the acquisition was hit by article 14 and 15 of the constitution as the purpose of the acquisition was to give advantage to one party of the litigation over the other. This amounted to favorable treatment of one religious group over the other.
Justice Mathur however refrained from recording any finding about the nature of the acquired land its title and possession in view of the pending regular suits.
The judge however held that the acquisition was not hit by the interim orders of the high court dated August 14, 1989 which directed the state government to maintain Status quo of the land.
As many as six writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition out of which five were filed on behalf of Muslims and one on behalf of Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhar.
It had been the stand of Muslim petitioners that nine of the 23 disputed plots in the vicinity of Babri Masjid fell within the revenue plots acquired by the state government.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the acquisition malafide and was done in “colorable exercise of power to give preferential treatment 10 one religious group over the other. This was despite the fact that there was sufficient land available in the vicinity which could be used to build a temple.
While acquiring the disputed land under section four subsections (1) of the land acquisition act of 1984 the state government did not go through certain procedures like an inquiry provided for under the act.
On other hand notification directed the provision of section 5(A) of the act providing for inquiry shall not apply on the ground that the acquisition was urgent.
The notifications mentioned development of tourism provision of amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya as the purpose for which the particular land had been acquired.
Justice Mathur held that the acquisition was hit by article 14 and 15 of the constitution as the purpose of the acquisition was to give advantage to one party of the litigation over the other. This amounted to favorable treatment of one religious group over the other.
Justice Mathur however refrained from recording any finding about the nature of the acquired land its title and possession in view of the pending regular suits
The judge however held that the acquisition was not hit by the interim orders of the high court dated Aug.14, 1989 which directed the slate government to maintain status quo of the land.
As many as six writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition out of which five were filed on behalf of Muslims and one on behalf of Panch Ramanandi Ninmohi Akhar.
It had been the stand of the Muslim petitioners that nine of the 23 disputed plots in the vicinity of Babri Masjid fell within the revenue plots acquired by the state government.
It was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the acquisition was malafide and was done in “colorable exercise of power to give preferential treatment to one religious group over the other. This was despite the fact that there was sufficient land available in the vicinity which could be used to build a temple.
While acquiring the disputed land under section four subsection (1) Of the land acquisition act of 1894 the state government did not go through certain procedures like an Inquiry provided for under the act.
On other hand notification directed the provision of section 5(A) of the act providing for inquiry shall not apply on the ground that the acquisition was urgent.
Article extracted from this publication >>
