The Supreme Court has intervened in the matter of removing a dargah of the police station of Maharashtra. The court directed to maintain the status quo for seven days. The Pardeshi Baba Trust has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court’s decision, in which the dargah was allowed to be removed. & Nbsp;
According to the report of Live Law, this case has been going on between Pardeshi Baba Trust and a private company for 23 years. This company claims to be owned by the land. The company says that the area of ​​160 square feet of the dargah was extended to 17,160 square feet and this land belongs to the company. The police station Municipal Corporation was also not allowed for this construction. Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice B Varale’s bench was hearing the case.
Bombay High Court, while hearing the writ petition filed against this construction, directed to break the unauthorized part. During the hearing, the court reprimanded the Pardeshi Baba Trust for construction near the dargah and also expressed displeasure at the police station Municipal Corporation that he did not give clear information about the facts in the affidavit related to the case.
On behalf of the trust, Senior Advocate Hafaja Ahmadi, while disarray the High Court’s decision, said that the court did not pay attention that the civil lawsuit filed for construction in April 2025 was dismissed. He also says that the dispute was about the construction done in 3,600 square feet, but the focus of the High Court was on the construction of 17,610 square feet.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan appeared on behalf of the company who explained the ownership of the land. He said that the trust encroached on the ground under the guise of religion. Advocate Madhavi, citing municipal reports, declared the entire religious construction illegal and said that the Trust has rebuilt some parts of the demolished structure and shows that he is constantly disregarding the court order.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, expressed concern over the lack of clarity about the procedural irregularities and facts. There is also ambiguity on whether the order of demolition of March 10, 2025 was fully followed. Justice Mehta said that it is disappointing not to disclose the case of the case being dismissed and if the High Court had known this, he could have come to a different conclusion.
The Supreme Court has allowed the trust to raise this point in the High Court and has directed to maintain the status quo at the disputed site for seven days. The court has said that the High Court should tell the facts so that it consider it.