The Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stance against the Uttar Pradesh government regarding its acquisition of land from ‘Sugriv Kila’ temple in Ayodhya. The court criticized the state for seizing a 1,512-square-metre plot intended for the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple development without fulfilling its financial obligations.
On August 11,the bench comprising Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf ordered the state to pay ₹1.21 crore, plus 8% annual interest,to the temple authorities. This decision came in response to petition filed by the Shri . Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir,which alleged that the government had promised to pay ₹1.38 crore for land within 15 days of its acquisition in December 2023 but failed to do so.
The temple authorities claimed that after taking possession of the land, the government changed its narrative, asserting that the land was actually Nazul,or government land,despite having executed a sale deed. This contradiction raised serious concerns about fairness of the state’s actions.
The High Court expressed dismay at the state’s contradictory position, noting that while it disputed the temple's ownership, it continued to occupy the land. The court remarked, “If title of the property is in dispute, the property ought to have been reverted to the petitioner rather than the authorities continuing to remain in possession.”
In its ruling, court highlighted the lack of due diligence by state, stating that authorities typically conduct a title search before acquiring property. Instead, it appeared they had acted hastily, taking possession under questionable circumstances. The judges remarked that the actions of government seemed to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the temple authorities,stating,“The whole story seems to be well orchestrated and a product of some fertile mind to somehow delay and postpone the payments of sale consideration to petitioner merely to take the possession in a jiffy and deny the legitimate payment of sale consideration thereafter.”
As part of its directive,the High Court mandated that the state deposit the unpaid amount of ₹1,20,96,000 into interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalized bank . This deposit is to be made in the name of the court where the civil suit regarding the land is pending,with a deadline of four weeks.
While the court did not resolve the ownership dispute, it urged the trial court to expedite the civil suit proceedings,aiming for a conclusion within one year . The ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities surrounding land ownership and government acquisition in India,particularly in a region as historically and culturally significant as Ayodhya.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate financial concerns. It raises questions about the integrity of land acquisition processes and the responsibilities of government authorities in upholding agreements . As the case unfolds, it will be closely monitored by various stakeholders, including religious organizations and legal experts,who are keen to see how the state will respond to the court's directives.
