New Delhi: Criticising the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh over its handling of the “Sugriv Kila” temple land in Ayodhya, the Allahabad high court has asked the state government to deposit Rs 1.21 crore along with 8% annual interest, reported The Hindu.

A bench of Justices Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Shekhar B. Saraf on August 11 said that while the authorities took possession of a 1,512-square-metre plot for development work linked to the Ram temple in Ayodhya, the government did not pay the agreed amount for the land.

“Apparently, the conduct of the respondents-Authorities cannot be termed to be fair, proper or reasonable because of the simple reason that apparently the authorities have fooled the petitioner to oust them from the said portion of the temple land in the name of sale-deed and now when the payment is being demanded, they have volte-faced their stand by claiming that the said portion of temple land is ‘Nazul’ and/or a Government Land and was not capable of being sold,” said the court.

The court added that the “whole story seems to be well orchestrated and a product of some fertile mind to somehow delay and postpone the payments of sale consideration to the petitioner merely to take the possession in a jiffy and deny the legitimate payment of sale consideration thereafter.”

The court passed its order while hearing a petition filed by Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, a temple situated adjacent to main Ram temple in Ayodhya.

While the state government submitted during the hearing that its case is pending before the trial court, the high court noted that the state was disputing the temple’s title while continuing to retain possession of the property.

The high court observed that if the title of the property is in dispute, the property ought to have been reverted to the petitioner rather than the authorities continuing to remain in possession.

The high court directed the state to deposit within four weeks the unpaid Rs 1,20,96,000, along with 8% annual interest, in an interest-bearing fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of the court where the civil suit is pending.

It also clarified that it was not deciding the ownership dispute and directed the trial court that the civil suit be expedited, with an endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within one year.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.