Tuesday, Apr 01, 2003
Tuesday, Apr 01, 2003 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Justice S. Rajendra Babu, rejected the Union Government's application to vacate the ban imposed by the Court last year that no religious activity of any kind would be permitted either on the 2.77 acres of "disputed land" or the "undisputed land". The Bench, comprising Justices S.S.M. Quadri, M.B. Shah, N. Santosh Hegde and Doraiswamy Raju, made it clear "that the order made by this Court on March 13/14, 2002 should be operative until disposal of the suits in the Allahabad High Court not only to maintain communal harmony, but also to fulfil the other objectives of the (1993 Acquisition) Act''. The Bench did not agree with the Centre's contention that the orders passed last year were beyond the scope of the 1994 judgment. It said that the preamble to the 1993 Act itself disclosed that the objective of the enactment was maintenance of harmony between different communities in the country and public order. "If the acquisition has been effected on that basis not only of the disputed land but also of the adjacent land, this thread will run through the entire proceedings and we must bear in mind that when the dispute is not yet finally resolved, maintenance of communal harmony and peace is absolutely needed.'' "It is no doubt true that when passions run high, demands are made for several types of activities being carried on in the adjacent land. If any such activities are carried on in such land, even before the resolution of the dispute pending before the court, it may affect the harmony and tranquillity that has prevailed for so long''. The Bench rejected the Centre's contention that under the 1993 Act it was vested with powers to transfer its rights, title and interest on the acquired land to any trust or body by imposing certain conditions. Quoting the 1994 judgment in the M. Ismail Faruqui's case, the Bench said "it is clear that the adjacent land, though vest in the Central Government, will have to be utilised in different manners depending upon the outcome of the litigation in respect of the disputed property. Thus the manner or extent to which the adjacent land could be used would depend upon the final outcome of the pending dispute in the High Court. The acquisition of larger extent of land is incidental to main purpose". The Bench made it clear that the two acquired lands were intrinsically connected with one another and could not be separated at this stage of the proceedings for different treatment during the interregnum. If the land was transferred to any other body or trust, as pleaded by the Centre, at this stage further complications might arise. "Therefore, status quo will have to be maintained until suits are finally disposed of." The judges drew the Centre's attention to the fact that the status quo had been maintained from 1992 onwards and no activities as were set out in the course of the application had been required to be done so far. "When for a long time, a particular state of affairs has prevailed — as in the present case for over a decade — and when the adjudication of the disputes which are pending before the High Court are reaching the final stages, it will not be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs", the Bench said. "It is well known that preservation of property in its original condition is absolutely necessary to give appropriate reliefs to the parties on the termination of the proceedings before the courts and therefore, we do not thing that this is one of those cases in which it becomes necessary to disturb that state." The Bench disposed of the writ petition filed by Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure seeking a direction that the entire property be handed over to the Army. It was in this petition the court ordered `status quo' last year.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
