Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ
HAJRAT JOK ALISHA DARGAH THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE SOLANKI ARIFBHAI MAHMADBHAI – Appellant
Versus
DR. OM PRAKASH , MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ANR. – Respondent
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1437 of 2025
For the Appellant:MR MTM HAIM, ADVOCATE
For the Respondents: MR RIZWAN SHAIKH
Municipal authorities must comply with Supreme Court directives regarding unauthorized constructions before any demolition actions.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Supreme Court Directions - Allegation of willful disobedience of Supreme Court directions regarding unauthorized constructions of religious structures. (Paras 1-4, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction of Municipal Authorities - Improper issuance of notices without adherence to Supreme Court mandates and State Government policies for regularizing religious structures. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant alleged that the demolition of a historically significant Dargah was conducted without jurisdiction and in violation of Supreme Court orders.
Findings of Court:
Respondents acted contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions and the Policy of the State Government.
Issues: Key debate centered on the jurisdiction of the Nagarpalika to demolish structures recognized by historical importance without following prescribed regulatory processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court directions, affirming the validity of historical claims to avoid arbitrary actions by municipal authorities.
Result: Notice issued to the respondents for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of contempt due to disobedience of supreme court order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. jurisdiction aspects related to religious structures' demolition. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's observation on compliance with supreme court directives. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. acknowledgement of the need for adherence to judicial orders. (Para 7) |
| 5. issuance of notice for respondents based on previous observations. (Para 14) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the present contempt application, the applicant has alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 31.01.2018.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim has pointed out that despite the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Senior Town Planner of the respondent – Nagarpalika issued a notice on 31.01.2025 to the applicant(s) – Hajrat Jok Alisha Dargah, calling upon them to produce necessary documentary evidence about the construction and ownership of the land, failing which, the alleged unauthorized Dargah would be demolished. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice on 03.02.2025 pointing out the directions issued by the Supreme Court and also requested that necessary exercise for regularization is required to be undertaken, as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
3. The applicant has also questioned the issuance of the notice and it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Hakim that the respondent – Nagarpalika was apprised that the notice was without jurisdiction.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim, has submitted that in fact, the Dargah was more than 300 years old and it was registered in the year 1964. It is submitted that thereafter, subsequent notices were also issued and the applicant had accordingly replied to such show-cause notices and ultimately, last show- cause notice was issued on 09.04.2025, which was responded on 15.04.2025. It is submitted that despite the replies given to the aforesaid notices, the respondent – Corporation demolished the Dargah on 17.04.2025.
5. Despite the aforesaid replies, the applicant has also pointed out the relevant circulars to the Senior Town Planner of the respondent - Nagarpalika. He has also referred to the Resolution dated 19.04.2024, which has been issued pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009 and 07.12.2009, which mention about the removal, relocation and regularization of the unauthorized constructions carried out in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Hakim has pointed out that as per the Policy of the State Government, the entire exercise is required to be undertaken by the Committee and the Nodal OfÏcer is also required to be appointed by the Committee to undertake necessary exercise of verification of the disputed structure. However, it is submitted that in the present case, the respondent - Nagarpalika has undertaken the exercise of demolition of Dargah without following the Policy of the State Government and also in contravention to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
7. We have heard the learned advocate Mr.Hakim, appearing for learned advocate Mr.Razwan Shaikh, for the applicant.
8. The issue with regard to the demolition, regularization of the religious structures on public places, was under deliberation before the Supreme Court. It appears that the Supreme Court, initially passed an order on 29.09.2009 directing that by an interim measure, no unauthorized construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc., on public streets, public parks or other public places. Further directions were issued that the unauthorized construction of the religious nature, which has already been taken place, the State Governments and the Union Territories shall review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. Such directions were conveyed to
