The Gujarat High Court has reserved its verdict in a dispute over land linked to the Somnath Corridor project, after petitioners challenged the acquisition and demolition of a 500-year-old shrine they said had protected-monument status. The hearing involved questions over the authority of the body that transferred the land and whether required permissions were obtained before the structure was removed.
According to Divya Bhaskar, the disputed property includes the Pir Ahmad Shah dargah, located inside the Somnath area and next to an inscription describing its history. Advocate Anand Yagnik, representing the petitioners, told the court that the shrine had been declared a protected monument during the period of Junagadh State under British rule and was later recognised as a historical monument under Gujarat law after Independence.
The land is required for a corridor being developed by the Somnath Trust for devotees visiting the Somnath temple, the report said. The dispute centres on whether the property could legally be transferred for the project and whether the authorities followed the required heritage, waqf and trust procedures before taking possession.
Yagnik alleged that the shrine’s management structure had changed over time. Between 1978 and 1987, three shrines in Junagadh district were reportedly consolidated into a single trust, which later became part of a joint waqf arrangement following orders involving the Charity Commissioner. The petitioners argued that the independent trust associated with Pir Ahmad Shah no longer existed in the same form and that the person appointed as temporary mutawalli did not have the authority to sell or transfer the property.
The petitioners further alleged that the temporary mutawalli issued a no-objection certificate and passed a resolution without informing the joint trust, its trustees or other stakeholders. They also questioned the process by which the Waqf authorities approved the transfer and ordered that the government take over the land in return for compensation of Rs 5 crore.
The report said the Collector, accompanied by police personnel, subsequently took action at the site and the structures were demolished. The petitioners stated that they preserved the inscription and other material from the shrine. The case also raises questions about the role of the Archaeology Department, which reportedly issued a notice asking how a protected monument had been demolished without the required prior permission.
The petitioners told the High Court that the Archaeology Department’s notice had not received a response. They also argued that the joint trust and waqf authorities should have been formally included in the record before any decision was taken to transfer the land. A further point raised before the court was that the person who later approved the transfer had earlier opposed the move, but was subsequently appointed to a position that enabled the land to be handed over.
The High Court had questioned the petitioners on their locus standi during the proceedings. After hearing the submissions, the court reserved its verdict. The judgment will determine how the competing claims over the land, the shrine’s heritage status, the waqf and trust authorities’ powers, and the Somnath Corridor’s acquisition process are treated in law.
