The Supreme Court on Thursday granted relief to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, directing status quo on a disputed property in Lucknow, which he claims ownership of but was dispossessed from in 2023 after it was declared “evacuee property.”
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh issued the directive in response to Ansari’s plea, alleging that authorities had commenced construction on the disputed site despite his pending writ petition in the Allahabad High Court.
“The authorities and the petitioners are directed to maintain status quo at the site until the High Court hears the matter,” the bench ordered. It further requested the High Court to list the case before an appropriate bench at the earliest, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
The matter pertains to Plot No. 93 in Village Jiamau, Lucknow, which was bequeathed to Abbas Ansari and his brother Umar Ansari in 2017 via a registered will.
However, in 2020, the SDM of Dalibagh, Lucknow, allegedly passed an ex-parte order declaring the property as “evacuee property,” effectively transferring its ownership to the government. By August 2023, the Ansari brothers were dispossessed from the property.
While other co-owners of the property successfully secured interim relief through a writ petition filed in 2021, the Ansari brothers’ plea, filed later, failed to obtain similar protection.
In October 2024, the Supreme Court disposed of the Ansari brothers’ Special Leave Petition (SLP), directing the Allahabad High Court to prioritize their writ petition and hear their application for interim relief. Despite this directive, the High Court allegedly failed to conduct an effective hearing, prompting Abbas Ansari to approach the Supreme Court again.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Ansari, argued that the High Court’s inaction had left his client as the only affected party without interim protection, while authorities continued construction on the disputed site. Sibal further alleged that Ansari’s background played a role in the denial of relief.
“When High Courts fail to act, where does a citizen go?” Sibal questioned, highlighting the High Court’s reluctance to grant a stay despite multiple opportunities.
The Supreme Court bench refrained from commenting on the alleged bias but expressed concerns about the functioning of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Some High Courts are worrisome in their functioning. The Allahabad High Court, being the largest in the country, faces serious issues with filing and listing of cases.”
Recognizing the urgency and potential for irreversible harm, the Supreme Court directed both the authorities and the petitioners to maintain status quo at the disputed site until the High Court resolves the matter.
It also instructed the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the order is brought to the attention of the concerned bench without delay.
