The Bombay High Court has rejected a plea by the Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole Trust (popularly known as the Pardeshi Baba Trust) seeking to recall its earlier order for demolition of a Dargah structure located in Thane’s Borivade.

The trust had approached the High Court again, citing a Supreme Court order that allowed it to pursue appropriate legal remedies after the High Court initially directed the demolition. Appearing for the Trust, Senior Advocate Rajiv Patil argued that the Dargah dated back to 1882, referring to a republished Thane Gazette.

He further relied on a 1982 sale deed, 1989 land records, and the trust’s registration with the Charity Commissioner in 1990 to claim that the structure’s existence was legitimate.

However, the Thane Municipal Corporation, represented by Senior Advocate RS Apte, maintained that the structure had no legal sanction. The corporation said that no construction permission was ever granted and a demolition notice had been issued earlier, but the process was stalled due to police restrictions and a Supreme Court status quo order.

A bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the trust had failed to provide any credible proof of ownership or permissions for the construction. The court observed that the Trust merely relied on the absence of objections to its public notice through the Charity Commissioner to claim ownership, a claim the bench found untenable.

“They have not been able to produce a single piece of evidence to suggest that there was any structure owned or possessed by the Trust,” the bench noted in its order.
It held that encroachment could not be regularised through mere assertions or public sentiment. “We are unable to accept that mob fury and mere footfalls of people on a particular piece of land can prove that it is a legal structure,” the court said.

The bench further emphasised that entries in revenue records like the 7/12 extract could not serve as proof of lawful construction. It pointed out that the Dargah Trust had not obtained permission for any construction and that the structure had expanded to over 20,000 square feet.

A person asserting ownership, the court said, must come with clean hands and prove the claim with evidence, not by relying on the shortcomings of the opposing party’s arguments. Concluding that the Trust had encroached upon the land and usurped it without legal backing, the High Court declined to grant any relief and upheld the demolition order.

– Ends