In a significant legal battle, the Gujarat government is facing scrutiny over its recent demolition activities in Gir Somnath, particularly concerning places of worship and other structures belonging to the local Muslim community. This situation has escalated to the Supreme Court, where the government has provided its justification for the demolitions.
The Gujarat government has defended its actions, stating that the land on which the structures stood was government property adjacent to the Arabian Sea.
In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, officials explained that their ongoing efforts to remove encroachments from valuable government land are essential for maintaining public order and ensuring the rightful use of these areas. According to the government, this initiative is part of a broader campaign aimed at reclaiming land that had been improperly occupied.
The backdrop to this legal dispute involves a petition from the Summast Patni Muslim Jamaat, which accuses the Gujarat authorities of deliberately violating a court order issued on September 17.
This order prohibited demolitions across the country without prior permission from the Supreme Court. The petitioners contend that their rights have been disregarded, as the demolition included historical and religious structures significant to the local Muslim community, such as dargahs and mosques.
In its defence, the Gujarat government emphasised that all demolitions were conducted in accordance with legal protocols. It highlighted a specific instance where 26 encroachments were removed from a location in Village Prabhas Patan.
The breakdown of these demolitions revealed that the majority of encroachments removed were associated with the Muslim community, although officials noted that some encroachments belonging to Hindus were also dismantled.
This statistical detail has sparked accusations from the petitioner, who argues that the government has unfairly characterised the actions as communal rather than administrative.
Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by the government outlined that notices had been issued to encroachers before the demolitions took place. This notice was part of the procedural requirements stipulated by the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.
The government insists that the actions taken were justified and legal, thus countering the claims of the petitioners regarding their standing in the case. They argue that the petitioners have not demonstrated how they are directly affected by the demolitions.
The legal representatives for the petitioners, including Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, have sought additional time to respond to the government’s affidavit. Hegde’s argument focuses on the perceived inadequacy of the state’s justification, asserting that merely stating the proximity to the Arabian Sea does not absolve the government of its responsibility to respect the rights of the community.
This case has broader implications, especially in the context of the Supreme Court's previous directives aimed at curtailing indiscriminate demolitions. The court has made it clear that while unauthorised structures in public areas may be subject to removal, there must be due process, including notices and opportunities for affected individuals to contest the demolitions.
The controversy surrounding the demolitions in Gir Somnath has drawn attention to the delicate balance between government authority and community rights.
As the situation unfolds, the Supreme Court's forthcoming decisions will play a crucial role in determining the fate of the structures involved and setting precedents for similar cases in the future.
Follow us
