SC declines to halt Gir Somnath demolitions, warns of restoration if ruling violated

“If we find that they are in contempt of our order, we will ask them to restore the status quo ante,” said Justice Gavai, while declining to issue a notice in the matter.

The bench, also comprising Justice K V Viswanathan, was hearing a petition filed by Summast Patni Musslim Jamat, a trust representing the Patni Muslim community of Prabhas Patan, against the demolition drive carried out in the area close to Somnath temple last month.

Appearing for the trust, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said some of the structures are very old and the notices issued to the occupants did not mention demolition. He also alleged that the demolition drive was in violation of the interim order passed on September 17. He also sought status quo, saying the remaining structures, too, may be demolished.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat, said the action squarely fell within the exceptions provided in the September 17 order.

In its September 17 interim order, the top court said: “Till the next date of hearing, we direct that there shall be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave of this Court. We further clarify that our order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.”

The order came on petitions which alleged that municipal authorities in various states were employing demolitions as a crime-fighting measure by razing dwelling units of accused people.

Mehta said the encroachments in Gir Somnath abutted a waterbody — the sea — and that due procedure was followed.

He said that it was government land and eviction proceedings were started in 2023. Notices were issued and a personal hearing was given to the parties, he submitted.

Following the submission, the bench said that it was not issuing notice but asked the SG to file his response to the petition.

The petitioners opposed the SG’s contentions but the bench pointed out that its interim order had an exception in the case of water bodies.