The Allahabad High Court has heavily criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for seizing 'Sugriv Kila' temple land for Ram Temple development without paying the agreed compensation.

  • Allahabad HC ordered UP government to deposit ₹1.21 crore plus 8% annual interest for seized temple land.
  • The court labeled the government's conduct as "well orchestrated" to avoid payment.
  • The dispute involves a 1,512-square-metre plot adjacent to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple.

The Allahabad High Court has issued a scathing critique of the Uttar Pradesh government regarding its handling of land belonging to the 'Sugriv Kila' temple in Ayodhya. The court observed that authorities took possession of a 1,512-square-metre plot intended for development linked to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple but failed to pay the agreed sale consideration.

Presiding over the matter, the bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf noted that the state's conduct cannot be termed fair or reasonable. The petitioner, Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, alleged that they were persuaded to sell the land with a promise of payment within 15 days. While possession was taken in December 2023, a significant sum of ₹1.21 crore remained unpaid.

Read Also:Dismissed UP Police Constable Offered ₹1 Lakh Monthly Salary by Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case highlights a worrying trend of "possess first, litigate later" tactics by state authorities. By executing a sale deed and subsequently claiming the land was 'Nazul' (government land), the state attempted to leverage its power to bypass financial obligations to a religious trust.

"The judiciary's intervention here ensures that the state cannot use administrative loopholes to deprive legitimate landowners of their compensation, regardless of the project's scale."

The court expressed disbelief that the state authorities, who typically conduct rigorous title searches before acquisition, suddenly claimed the land was government-owned only after taking possession. The bench remarked that the entire scenario seemed to be a product of a "fertile mind" designed to postpone payments while securing the land in a "jiffy."

While the state has filed a separate civil suit to cancel the sale deed, the High Court pointed out a glaring contradiction: if the title was truly in dispute, the property should have been returned to the petitioner instead of remaining in government possession.

Did You Know?: Nazul land refers to land that has vested in the government, often through historical grants or forfeitures, and is managed by the state revenue department.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the specific financial order passed by the court?
The court ordered the state to deposit ₹1,20,96,000 along with 8% annual interest in a nationalized bank as a fixed deposit.

2. Did the court decide who owns the land?
No, the High Court did not decide the ownership; it directed the trial court to expedite the civil suit and conclude the trial preferably within one year.