Allahabad HC Raps UP Govt for Seizing Sugriv Kila Land Without Paying Dues
The Allahabad High Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government over its handling of the 'Sugriv Kila' temple land in Ayodhya, observing that authorities took possession of a 1,512-square-metre plot for Ram Janmabhoomi development work but failed to pay the agreed amount.
A division bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, on August 11, directed the state to deposit the unpaid ₹1.21 crore along with 8% annual interest in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank. The deposit is to be made within four weeks in the name of the court where a civil suit related to the land is pending.
The order came on a petition filed by Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, a temple located adjacent to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple. The petitioner alleged that UP authorities persuaded the temple to sell the land, promising to pay ₹1.38 crore within 15 days. The possession was taken in December 2023, but the land component of ₹1.21 crore was never paid.
Later, the authorities changed their stance, claiming the land was Nazul or government land, despite having executed a sale deed and taken possession. The state has separately filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, which is pending before the competent civil court.
The High Court took exception to the state's position, noting that while it disputes the temple's title, it continues to retain possession of the property. The court observed that if the title is in dispute, the property ought to have been reverted to the petitioner rather than the authorities remaining in possession.
Observing that authorities normally conduct a title search before buying property, the court stated: "Apparently, the conduct of the respondents-Authorities cannot be termed to be fair, proper or reasonable because of the simple reason that apparently the authorities have fooled the petitioner to oust them from the said portion of the temple land in the name of sale-deed and now when the payment is being demanded, they have volte-faced their stand by claiming that the said portion of temple land is 'Nazul' and/or a Government Land and was not capable of being sold."
The court added that 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 the petitioner merely to take the possession in a jiffy and deny the legitimate payment of sale consideration thereafter."
The High Court clarified that it was not adjudicating the ownership dispute. It directed the trial court to expedite the civil suit, preferably concluding the trial within one year.
