MOHD. ASLAM @ BHURE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 31-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
,_. 
MOHD. ASLAM @ BHURE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, 
M.B. SHAH, N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND 
DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Public interest litigation: 
A 
B 
c 
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993-Ayodhya land-
dispute-Relating to erstwhile Ramjanma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid Structure-
Subsequent enactment of 1993 Act-Title suits before High Court-Pendency-
Writ petition before Supreme Court seeking preservation of adjacent land till 
final decision in title suits-Interim order passed directing status quo and D 
prohibiting religious activity-Disposing of the writ petition-Held: Status 
quo having been maintained over a decade and title suits pending before High 
Court are reaching final stages, and also preservation of property in its original 
condition is absolutely necessary, it is not appropriate to disturb the state of 
affairs-Thus interim order to be operative until disposal of title suits in High 
~~ 
E 
There has been a long standing communal dispute relating to 
erstwhile Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid Structure in Ayodhya. This 
lead to the enactment of Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 19~3. 
The object was to maintain harmony between different communities in 
the country and to _maintain public order for which it was necessary to 
acquire certain areas in Ayodhya. Thereafter claimants filed title suit 
claiming possession of disputed and adjacent land. The petitioner then filed 
the present public interest petition seeking preservation of adjacent land 
F 
till final decision in title suit. This Court passed an interim order directing 
status quo and prohibited any religious activity at the acquired land which G 
was modified later. Thereafter on completion of pleadings application was 
filed seeking vacation of interim order and final hearing of the petition. 
Petitioner contended that the decision of this Court in M. Ismail 
Faruqui's case clearly indicates that the purpose of acquisition of the 
143 
H 
14-1 
Sl'PRI 'vii l OliRJ RLl'llRIS 
120031 3 S CR 
A adjacent land is to meet the easement of necessity of proper enjoyment of 
the disputed land by its owner who is ultimately to be declared by the High 
Court and on consideration of the observations made by this Court with 
regard to the extent uf the area required for carrying uut the purpose of 
the -\ct would depend on the dcri~ion in farnur of the Muslims or Hindus 
B in respect of the disputed land and the scheme to be framed for purposes 
of developing a tomplex consisting of museum, library and other 
structures, which cannot be done until the suits pending before the High 
Court arc settled, therefore, the status quo passed in the interim order 
should be made absolute and an appropriate relief be granted. 
C 
Respondents contended that the interim relief granted by this Court 
earlier goes be)ond the scope of the decision rendered by this Court in 
M. /smuil Fantl/111 "' case and the petition filed by the petitioner should be 
dismissed straighta\rny because he had filed a writ petition before the High 
Court which came to be dismissed and in this petition there is hardly any 
proper foundation laid for granting any relief; and that the allegations 
D made are vague and do not contain the necessary details to appreciate the 
various contentions urged before the Court and several of the prayers 
made in the petition have already become infructuous. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
E 
HELD: I. I. The ad,jacent land, though vest in the Central 
Government, will lrn,·e to be utilized in different manners depending upon 
the outcome of the litigation in respect of the disputed property pending 
in the High Court. The acquisition of larger extent of land is incidental to 
main purpose. Thus, the two acquired lands are intrinsically connected 
F with one another and cannot be separated at this stage of the proceedings 
for different treatment during the interregnum. Further, it has also been 
made clear that if any land becomes superfluous such land will have to 
be returned to the owner who may have to initiate appropriate proceedings 
to challenge the validity of the acquisition. If land is transferred to any 
other body or trust as provided under Section 6 of the Acquisition of 
G Certain Arca at Ayudhya Act, II 993 at this stage further complications may 
arise. Therefore, .11u111.1· •!'"'\\ill have to be maintained until the suits are 
finally disposed uf. The o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.