New Delhi (Agency): Railway authorities in India have apprised the Supreme Court of the demolition of an encroached portion of the railway’s land near Krishnajanam Bhoomi in Mathura. The demolition has been a matter of contention, leading to a legal battle between the railway authorities and the petitioner.
In the affidavit submitted to the court, the railway authorities stated that the demolition had already taken place, and therefore, the writ petition was infructuous and should be dismissed. The railway’s stance was that the eviction proceedings were in compliance with the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPE Act). They accused the petitioner of suppressing this information from the court.
The land in question falls on the side of the Mathura to Vrindavan railway track, an area associated with pre-independent era “meter gauge” tracks. The railway authorities had undertaken a major project to convert this track to broad gauge to facilitate the running of high-speed and express trains on the route. This project was prompted by increased demand for direct trains connecting major stations to the important pilgrimage centers of Mathura and Vrindavan.
The railway authorities criticized the petitioner, claiming that he was acting as a busybody and interfering in the eviction proceedings. They described the petitioner as a local political leader and accused him of intervening in the proceedings for “ostensible and extraneous reasons.”
The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, adjourned the case without passing an order to extend the status quo. Earlier, on August 16, the court had directed that the status quo be maintained for ten days on the demolition drive.
The petitioner’s side argued that the demolition process was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They sought a stay on the demolishment and filed a civil suit before the Civil Court Senior division in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for a permanent injunction against the railway authority.
The petitioner’s claim also included that they had been residing on the property since 1880 and that the demolition had commenced on August 9, 2023. They challenged the demolition the following day, and when the courts were closed, they were compelled to approach the top court to issue a direction to stay the demolition.
The legal dispute over the demolition at Krishnajanam Bhoomi reflects the complexities of land rights and the potential conflict between development projects and the rights of occupants. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling may provide clarity on the legal framework governing such conflicts and the balance between public interest and individual rights.
