New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed concern about the Allahabad High Court's failure to expedite a hearing on a property ownership case involving the late Uttar Pradesh gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari's sons.
Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench, flagged the working of some high courts and said, “Some of the high courts, we don’t know what will happen…this (Allahabad High Court) is one of the high courts which one should be worrisome about. Unfortunately, filing has collapsed, listing has collapsed…nobody knows which matter will be listed.”
Justice Kant, pointed out that the Allahabad HC is the largest high court in the country, said he “was there on last Saturday” and “had long interaction with some of the concerned judges and Registrar”, Indian Express reported.
The court was hearing a case involving the ownership of a property in Jiamau, Lucknow. In 2020, the Lucknow Development Authority razed a bungalow erected on the site by Ansari and his sons, including Abbas Ansari, with plans to use the land to develop flats under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.
'Not inclined to express any opinion'
On Thursday, the SC bench, which also included Justice N K Singh, ordered a halt to the construction of the housing units until the high court decided the case.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Abbas Ansari, stated that despite the fact that his appeal for possession of the aforementioned land had been repeatedly listed by the Allahabad High Court's division bench, no interim stay had been granted.
Sibal claimed that the Supreme Court had urged the HC on October 21 of last year to expedite the plea application hearing for an interim stay, but this was yet to happen. This triggered Justice Kant's comments. The bench was unimpressed by the senior counsel's arguments for why the HC had not taken it up for hearing.
In its order, the Supreme Court said, “Since we have not issued notice and have also not obtained any report from Registry of the High Court, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to what were the circumstances in which the petitioner’s writ petition could not be taken up for hearing by the bench, though it was listed from time to time.”
It noted the petitioner's claim that the building had begun on the land and that granting third-party rights would result in irrevocable loss for them. As a result, it disposed the plea "with a direction to the authorities as well as the petitioners to maintain the status quo at the site till the matter is heard by the High Court.”