The petitions allege that despite an earlier Supreme Court order to stop demolitions, the authorities continued construction activities at the site.
NEW DELHI: Today, 28th April: The Supreme Court advised the Gujarat government that the compound wall being built at a demolition site near Gir’s Somnath Temple to stop encroachments should be around five to six feet tall.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih made this observation after the Gujarat government informed the court that they were constructing a compound wall to prevent further encroachments.
Responding to the petitioner’s concerns about the height of the wall, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, said that authorities have the right to protect government land by building a compound wall.
In a matter related to the demolition of Muslim religious and residential buildings in Gir Somnath, Gujarat, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared before the Supreme Court.
He informed the Court about petitions that seek contempt action against Gujarat authorities.
The petitions allege that despite an earlier Supreme Court order to stop demolitions, the authorities continued construction activities at the site.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde told the Court, “Even though the court had ordered contempt of court, construction work is still happening. They are trying to change the status quo.”
In response to these concerns, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, explained to the Court that there was no illegal construction happening.
He clarified, “They are only building a boundary wall to prevent anyone from illegally occupying the land.”
Justice B.R. Gavai, who was part of the bench hearing the matter, asked an important question to understand the situation better: “Are they carrying out any construction work within the premises?“
To this, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde replied, “Right now, there’s a 12-foot wall, but we don’t know what might be built after this.”
Justice B.R. Gavai assured that the Supreme Court would protect the rights of the petitioners. He pointed out that the matter was already listed for a detailed hearing soon.
“This matter is scheduled for hearing on the 30th, If you win, the land will be protected for you,” Justice Gavai said.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, still concerned about potential changes to the property, requested that the existing conditions be maintained.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks Maharashtra’s Reply on Demolition Over Alleged Anti-India Slogan
He said, “I request that the Status Quo.”
Justice B.R. Gavai responded to Hegde’s request by offering assurance.
“If there is any new construction, you can approach us. We will make sure you are protected. Usually, compound walls are only about 5-6 feet high. Why are you asking for a 12-foot wall? You should give proper instructions to your Collector,” Justice Gavai said.
The Court emphasized that the parties involved should avoid any action that might alter the status of the disputed land until the matter is finally decided.
On January 31, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had made a “categorical statement” before the Supreme Court, saying that no activities, including Hindu religious rituals, were being allowed on the land under encroachment.
On Monday, Mehta confirmed that the situation remained the same.
“We are only constructing a compound wall for preventing encroachments,” he told the court.
Advocate Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the authorities were building a 12-feet high compound wall, and the petitioner had no idea about what was happening inside the site.
In response, the bench remarked, “Why would you not know? There are drones available everywhere now.”
Hegde then commented, “It is like you have made a Great Wall of China and saying we are protecting.”
To this, Mehta replied, “It is not a Great Wall of China. Let us not sensationalise.”
The petitioner requested that a status quo be maintained at the site.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court bench posted the matter for further hearing on May 20.
The bench also assured Hegde that if the authorities carried out any other construction work, he was free to approach the court again.
Earlier, on January 31, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea that sought permission to hold the “Urs” festival between February 1 and February 3 at a dargah (Muslim shrine) which was demolished during the demolition drive in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district.
The bench had taken note of Mehta’s statement that all unauthorised structures — including temples — on government land had been demolished.
Additionally, a contempt petition had been filed against Gujarat authorities, alleging that they demolished residential and religious structures in the district on September 28 without first getting permission from the Supreme Court.
Defending its actions, the Gujarat government stated that the demolitions were part of an ongoing campaign to remove encroachments from public land.
BRIEF FACTS
The petition, filed by Summast Patni Musslim Jamat through advocate Anas Tanwir, seeks contempt proceedings against the Gujarat authorities for allegedly violating a Supreme Court order from September 17.
This order had temporarily prohibited demolitions across the country without the Court’s permission, except for unauthorized structures in public spaces or where demolition orders were issued by a court.
The petitioners allege that, on September 28, Gujarat authorities illegally demolished historic Muslim religious sites, including mosques and mausoleums, in Gir Somnath, without prior notice or a hearing.
The Gujarat Government previously assured the Court that the land involved would not be allotted to third parties until further notice. Additionally, the Auliya-e-Deen Committee of Junagadh has challenged a Gujarat High Court decision allowing the demolition to proceed.
The Supreme Court, while declining an immediate stay on the demolition, warned that any contempt of its order would result in sanctions, potentially including jail for responsible officials and restoration of the demolished structures.
Case Title: SUMMAST PATNI MUSSLIM JAMAT Versus RAJESH MANJHU, THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS., Diary No. 45534-2024 (and connected cases)
