(III) Vs. State of U. P  INSC 236 (28 November
M.N. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION: 1994 SCC (6) 756 JT
1992 (6) 725 1993 SCALE (1)174
have heard all the learned counsel at quite some length on the question whether
the prayer in IA No. 5 for the appointment of a 'Receiver' requires to be
granted or not.
2. On 25-11-1992, we had occasion to say in the course of the order:
appears to us that if no assurance of an effective implementation of the
Court's orders is forthcoming from the State Government, it will be our
constitutional duty not merely to expect but to exact obedience in an
appropriate manner. This step, we believe, would become necessary to preserve the
meaning and integrity of the constitutional institutions 757 and their
interrelationships, essential to the preservation of the chosen way of the life
of the Indian people under the Constitution.
shared our concern and expressed the hope he was not in a position to hold out
any more than that at this stage that given a week's time, the Government would
negotiate with the religious groups to avoid a collision course and persuade
them to take a rational view of the situation."
Today, the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home
Department, in the context of what Shri Venugopal calls a major, markedly
reassuring and eminently appropriate progress in the mood of the situation, has
filed an affidavit on behalf of the State Government which, referring to the
efforts made by the State Government in regard to the negotiations and
discussions with the religious groups which have called for a Kar Seva from
6-12- 1992, states:
The State Government would like to place on record the further progress the
negotiations have taken. The ongoing process of discussions and negotiations
with the religious leaders and the leaders of the VHP have been fruitful as a
result of which Smt Rajmata Scindia, senior leader and trustee of the VHP has
sent a letter to the Chief Minister of U.P. which is self-explanatory.
letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 1.
already stated, the State Government is now confident that as long as the writ
petitions regarding acquisitions are pending and the interim orders of the High
Court are in force no construction, permanent or temporary, will take place
though to satisfy the religious aspirations of the Ram Bhaktas Kar Seva other
than by way of construction as stated may take place.
State Government is confident that there will be no movement of construction
machinery or construction materials into the acquired land of 2.77 acres and,
therefore, the question of machinery or building material being moved from the
site of the Lakshman Temple or Seshavatar Temple (which is adjacent to the
acquired land) into the acquired 2.77 acres does not arise." Annexure I
referred to by the Special Secretary in the affidavit states:
response to the discussion with the Government of Uttar Pradesh, I concur with
the statement of Swami Chinmayanandji dated 27-11- 1992, that Kar Seva would be
performed on 6-12-1992, without violating the Court
State Government has also filed an undertaking before us to this effect:
State Government assures the Court that it will ensure that no construction
machinery or construction material will move into the acquired land and no
construction activity will take place or carried out as long as the High Court
interim orders are in force in the writ petition pending before it relating to
the land acquisition." 758
Venugopal submits this, indeed, is an achievement of the State Government
having regard to the very sensitive nature of the subject and the highly
excited mood of the religious groups over this emotive issue.
State Government, during the course of submissions on its behalf, expressed its
readiness and willingness to ensure that, apart from what the obligations
emanating from and implicit in the undertaking, no constructional machinery or
equipment now located in the area of and used for Sri Lakshman Temple, adjacent
to the acquired land, will be shifted from their present location, and that in
the name of 'Kar Seva' no constructional activity, either temporary or
permanent, would take place or allowed to take place on the acquired land. In
this context, the State Government explains that 'Kar Seva' would be a symbolic
occasion for carrying on certain religious activities to assuage the feelings
of the devotees and will not be allowed to be exploited for any constructional
activities, symbolic or otherwise. The Uttar Pradesh Government also agrees to
ensure that character of the acquired land will not be allowed to be altered. Shri
Venugopal submitted that the whole complexion of the problem has vastly changed
as a result of these strenuous and sincere endeavors of the State Government to
persuade the religious groups and their leaders. He submitted that it is only
appropriate that the Court should take into account and appreciate these
positive and constructive developments that have since occurred in the larger
interests of the country at the instance of the State Government and should
record that the need to make any orders on IA No. 5 does not exist at all. Shri
Venugopal stated that such expansive demands as are made through IA No. 5 would
only serve to aggravate a situation which, otherwise, is wholly under control
and within the framework of law.
O.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing in support of IA No. 5, however,
cautioned us that any undue reliance on the evanescent assurance of the State
Government might lead to serious situation developing on the spot as indeed,
according to him, the track record of the Government in the schism between its
assurances and performances would not justify such total and implicit trust. In
view of its past record on this issue the State Government has disentitled
itself to the credibility of its intentions and assurances. Shri Sharma said
that once large mass of humanity is allowed to congregate on the spot, the
State Government on its own self-confessed inability or disinclination to use
force against the devotees would achieve indirectly what it is forbidden to do
Sharma asserts that the previous experience of what happened between 6-7-1992
and 26-7-1992, should put the Court on guard and examine very closely whether
the State Government is adopting a stratagem to enable collection of large mass
of people who ultimately will be allowed to and formally blamed for taking (sic
law) into its own hands and pleading its own helplessness.
an anxious consideration of the matter, we think that while the submissions of Shri
Sharma cannot altogether be brushed aside, the positive side of the
developments that have occurred at the instance and initiative of the State
Government should not be belittled but recognised. The State 759 Government has
come forward with an emphatic assurance and undertaking that the orders of the
High Court will be obeyed and implemented and that no constructional activity
will be carried on or permitted to be carried on by whatsoever agency on the
acquired land. It will, therefore, be the total responsibility of the State
Government to ensure that the orders of the High Court or of this Court are
implemented. We think, in view of these developments we should abstain from
granting the prayer in IA No. 5 at this stage. If, however, the complexion of
the problem changes which might justify a further consideration of IA No. 5 the
matter could be examined at the appropriate occasion and for that purpose IA
No. 5 will remain pending.
the same time, we think, we should appoint a Judicial Officer as an Observer of
the situation. We request the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to spare
the services of any District Judge in the State Judicial Service for a period
of 2 weeks in the first instance to observe and monitor the situation and
submit a report to this Court whenever, in his opinion, developments tending to
be detrimental to the effectuation of this order take place. This request may
be communicated by Registrar General of this Court to the Registrar of the Allahabad
High Court to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court.
thought that the decision of the State Government to prevent any construction
activity on the acquired land should receive adequate publicity so that Kar Sevaks
who, having regard to the usual connotations of that expression, might not be
misled as to the purpose of their presence.
submits that the course of events in the immediately following days would
indicate that the stand of the Government and the orders of this Court have
received due and adequate publicity and that the need for any special procedure
for publicity be considered thereafter. We agree.
Venugopal also recalled to us that the terms of the last paragraph of the order
made on 25-11-1992 to the effect that if any
constructive response was forthcoming from the State Government we might
consider requesting the High Court for an expeditious decision of the matter. Shri
Venugopal says that the State Government by its performance is now entitled to
seek Court's consideration of this prayer.
Indeed, in a matter of this nature, it is neither advisable nor practicable to
tell the High Court within what timeframe it should render a judgment; but
having regard to what we said on the previous occasion, we request the High
Court to consider the expectations of the parties and the requirements of
justice and bestow on it such thought as it might consider proper.
direct this matter be listed on Monday, 30-11-1992, at 2.00 p.m.
copy of this order will go to the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
Masters Note: Copies of this order be issued on 29-11-1992.