The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to ensure that the compound wall being constructed near the Gir Somnath Temple, intended to prevent encroachments, should not exceed five to six feet in height. The Court was hearing a matter concerning alleged changes at a site where demolition activities had earlier taken place. Notably, the Court observed that protection of land does not necessitate the construction of excessively tall structures, emphasising the need for a reasonable approach.
The proceedings stem from a petition challenging the construction of a boundary wall at a demolition site near the Gir Somnath Temple in Gujarat. The petitioner raised concerns that a 12-feet-high compound wall was being constructed, allegedly altering the status quo despite earlier assurances made before the Supreme Court. The Gujarat government, on the other hand, submitted that the wall was being built solely to safeguard the land from unauthorized encroachments.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the construction of a 12-feet-high wall was a deliberate attempt to change the character of the land and obstruct visibility, thereby breaching the earlier assurances given to the Court. He claimed that the authorities’ actions raised apprehensions about activities being carried out behind the tall structure, with the petitioner unable to monitor developments.
Countering these claims, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Gujarat, submitted that the allegation regarding a 12-feet wall was merely an oral assertion without any substantial basis. He maintained that the construction was aimed solely at preventing future encroachments and emphasised that the state was not creating a fort-like structure. He reassured the Court that no religious or other activities were taking place on the disputed land.
The Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made important observations during the hearing. Addressing the State’s submissions, Justice Gavai remarked, "Don't have a 12-feet wall. If you are protecting it, five feet, six feet is enough."
The Court stressed that constructing an excessively tall wall was unnecessary for the purpose of land protection and suggested maintaining a reasonable height. Questioning the need for a 12-feet structure, the Bench asked, "Why do you want to have a 12-feet compound wall? Make it five or six feet." Further, when the petitioner's counsel expressed concerns about the lack of visibility into the site, the Court pointed out the availability of modern surveillance methods, noting, "Why would you not know? There are drones available everywhere now."
Rejecting any sensational comparisons made during arguments, Justice Gavai also advised against dramatizing the situation by saying, "It is not a Great Wall of China. Let us not sensationalise."
Concluding the hearing, the Top Court directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to instruct the local collector to ensure that the compound wall does not exceed five to six feet in height. The Court posted the matter for further hearing on May 20, clarifying that if any additional construction activities beyond the wall are carried out, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate relief.
Previously, the Court had dismissed a plea seeking permission to hold the "Urs" festival at the site and had cautioned authorities against contemptuous demolition activities. It had also reiterated that any illegal demolition, if proven, would be contrary to the ethos of the Constitution, although it allowed the removal of unauthorised constructions from public lands.
Picture Source :
