Lawyers at odds over magistrate’s ruling on temple dispute

 Temple management's lawyer refutes claim that court never ordered for demolition works to be temporarily halted.

On Friday, the Selayang magistrates’ court said the temple management and Yayasan Kubra will need to submit written statements and supporting documents before it determines the site’s actual owner. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA:

 A lawyer has disputed a claim by Yayasan Kubra’s counsel that the magistrates’ court in Selayang had not ordered a temporary halt to demolition works at a Hindu temple in Rawang.

Rajesh Nagarajan, who is representing the Sri Uchimalai Muniswaran Temple management, said if the magistrate had already issued an order to “preserve the peace pending inquiry” and fixed a date for the inquiry, the parties involved are bound to maintain the status quo.

“In those circumstances, it is legally absurd to suggest that demolition works may continue as if no order exists,” he told FMT.

Rajesh was responding to Hariz Yusoff, who earlier today denied that the court had issued an order to temporarily halt demolition works at the temple.

According to Sinar Harian, Hariz claimed the court was merely satisfied that a complaint regarding the land dispute existed.

He said the court agreed that the dispute had the potential to cause public tension if the situation was not properly controlled.

Hariz said the court subsequently ordered the two parties to attend a hearing under Section 99(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“And the hearing will only be limited to the issue of actual possession,” he said, adding that he was surprised the media reported the demolition works had to be temporarily halted.

“Such statements are confusing, as the court never mentioned temporarily halting demolition works or ordering as such,” he was quoted as saying.

However, Rajesh said that if the remaining structure is demolished before the June 5 inquiry, the subject matter of the proceedings would effectively be destroyed, rendering the court’s proceedings meaningless.

“In other words, the direct effect of the court order is that any further demolition cannot be carried out.

“Further demolition would defeat the purpose of the Section 99 order and amount to a clear disregard for, and contempt of, the court’s authority,” he said.

On Friday, the magistrates’ court in Selayang ruled that Yayasan Kubra can no longer carry out demolition works at the temple, which had been partially demolished, following a High Court ruling.

Magistrate Chai Guan Hock said the court found that there was a dispute concerning the land, noting that the temple had existed at the site since 1995, while the current landowner had owned the land since 2021.

Chai said the temple management and Yayasan Kubra will need to submit written statements and supporting documents before the court determines the site’s actual owner.

Rajesh had said yesterday the magistrate’s decision meant that the “status quo must be maintained”.

On Feb 27, the temple committee filed the suit to prevent any action that could breach the peace pending an eviction order from the High Court.

Rajesh had said the suit was filed to safeguard the temple’s interests from the actions of the landowner and third parties in “unlawfully demolishing the temple”. - FMT