Supreme Court rejects appeal in Hubli Idgah Maidan case

print   ·   T  T  
In dispute: A file photo of fruits being sold at the festival market at the Idgah Maidan in Hubli.
In dispute: A file photo of fruits being sold at the festival market at the Idgah Maidan in Hubli.

J. Venkatesan

Ground can be used for prayers on only two days a year

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court that the Anjuman-e-Islam can use the Hubli Idgah Maidan only for religious purposes and not for commercial activity.

A Bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice A.K. Patnaik dismissed an appeal filed by the Anjuman-e-Islam and the Wakf Board challenging the High Court judgment.

HDMC property

The High Court had held that the Idgah Maidan was not the exclusive property of the Anjuman-e-Islam but belonged to what was by then the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC). The maidan was licensed to the Anjuman for purely religious purposes, “that is, to offer prayers on two days in a year, the Bakrid and the Ramzan”. The Anjuman might not use the property for any educational or commercial purposes. The permanent structures already erected by the Anjuman had to be demolished, the High Court said. On appeal the Supreme Court stayed the demolition.

During the course of hearing of the appeal, the court had asked the HDMC Commissioner to convene a meeting of the representatives of the Anjuman-e-Islam and local Hindus to find out whether a compromise was possible. The Commissioner filed a report that no compromise could be reached. Thereafter the court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

The appellant had filed a case in a Munsif court claiming that the maidan had been leased to it from 1930 for 999 years for religious worship. It lost the case all the way from the Munsif court to the district court and then the High Court.

During the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel for the appellant Rajesh Mahale contended that the land was leased for 999 years and the finding of the High Court that it was only a licence was erroneous.

Licence, not lease

Justice Patnaik pointed out that the fact that only one-rupee rent was collected for one year would show that it was only a licence, otherwise it was unconscionable that the appellant could get the lease for a rupee. He said “It is only a licence and the land could be used only for religious purposes. You cannot use the land as you like.”

Justice Bhandari told counsel “why should we interfere when three courts below are against you. By no stretch of imagination it could be interpreted as a lease. You should be satisfied with the licence to offer prayers.”

Justice Bhandari said “whatever is going on let it continue peacefully and there shall be communal harmony among different communities”. The Bench then dismissed the appeal saying it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court judgment.




Recent Article in KARNATAKA

CID submits interim report on Karnataka lottery scam

Says four serving and two retired IPS officers were in touch with suspected kingpin »