Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Mohd. Aslam @ Bhure vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2003 cites

Akhara Brahm Buta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 August, 1992

It is clear that one of the purposes of the acquisition of the adjacent properties is the ensurement of the effective enjoyment of the disputed site by the Muslim community in the event of its success in the litigation; and acquisition of the adjacent area is incidental to the main purpose and cannot be termed unreasonable. The "Manas Bhawan" and "Sita ki Rasoi", both belonging to the Hindus, are buildings which closely overlook the disputed site and are acquired because they are strategic in location in relation to the disputed area. The necessity of acquiring adjacent temples or religious buildings in view of their proximity to the disputed structure area, which forms a unique class by itself, is permissible. (See : M. Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of A.P., AIR 1990 AP 357, and Akhara Shri Braham Buta vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1989 P&H 198.) We approve the principle stated in these decisions since it serves a larger purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1