NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court on Wednesday ordered to de-seal Uphaar cinema hall, where 59 cinemagoers were killed in a massive blaze during the screening of the Hindi film ‘Border’ on June 13, 1997, after considering an application by Ansal Theatres and Club Hotels Private Ltd, whose former directors were real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, both convicted in the fire tragedy case.
“Since the trial has reached finality, absolutely no purpose would be served to keep the property sealed. The application is thereby allowed and property in question be de-sealed and released to the applicant being the rightful owner,” Principal District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Garg said.
The order was passed after rejecting an objection raised by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) president Neelam Krishnamoorthy regarding the liability or loan on the theatre property. Regarding the 26-year-old FIR, the court said not only the trial stands concluded but even the appeal in the Apex Court stands disposed.
“In the view of this court, the concealment of these lines could not have helped the applicant in any way in disposing of this application in its favour. Thereby, the plea raised by Neelam Krishnamoorthy of tampering with the judicial record by the applicant is not acceptable,” the judge said.
Talking to this newspaper after the verdict, Krishnamoorthy said, “Since the Hon’ble court in its wisdom has decided to release Uphaar cinema today and give it back to the convicts Sushil and Gopal Ansal, I am forced to ask a question. Who in this legal battle has lost and who has benefited? Today the value of Uphaar Cinema, a site of mass murder, has gone up exponentially to the tune of 26 to 30 times its value in 1997.
The murderers, therefore, with Uphaar back in their hands, have gained hugely with the value of real estate soaring. But we, the victims of Uphaar tragedy, what have we gained? And where should we go to ask for justice?”
As the AVUT head sought appropriate action against the applicant for filing a copy of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case but deliberately, to misguide the court, leaving out a few lines at the bottom of a page. The judge said it was done “inadvertently”.