Introduction
In a recent development, the Indian Supreme Court has issued an interim order to maintain the status quo for the next 10 days, effectively restraining the Indian Railways from proceeding with its ongoing demolition drive in Nai Basti, a locality near Krishna Janmabhoomi in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura. The decision comes in response to an urgent plea filed by Yakub Shah, a 66-year-old resident who claims that the homes of long-standing residents, dating back to 1880, are being razed.
The demolition work, initiated by the Railways on August 9, 2023, has sparked controversy and legal battles. Shah’s plea was lodged with a civil court on August 10, but legal proceedings were hindered when the Railways’ lawyer asserted a lack of instructions. The matter was scheduled to be heard on August 14, but the court was closed due to a State Bar Council resolution following an advocate’s shooting incident.
Railways had resumed demolition
Taking advantage of the court closure, the Railways resumed demolition on August 14, prompting Shah to approach the Supreme Court in pursuit of relief. Represented by Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen and a team of attorneys, Shah’s plea before the apex court emphasizes the urgency and the need to protect residents who are facing displacement from the place they have called home for over a century.
The case has its roots in a 2005 lawsuit filed by multiple residents to prevent the Railways from evicting them from the disputed land. This case remains pending before a Mathura court. The residents’ concerns escalated in April when a newspaper notification hinted at imminent demolitions. A writ petition challenging this notification was submitted to the Allahabad High Court, which directed the residents to file representations with the Northern Central Railway authorities. However, the residents’ pleas were met with swift dismissal, sparking further legal action.
Shah’s Supreme Court plea not only seeks protection for himself but also urges the apex court to extend protection to all residents who may be affected by the proposed demolition drive. It is estimated that 15 other residents have been named in the petition, each facing the threat of displacement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the status quo provides temporary respite to the residents while the legal proceedings continue. The matter is scheduled to be heard again next week, giving hope to the affected residents that their voices will be heard and justice will prevail in this longstanding dispute over their homes.
