Uttar Pradesh: Religious sites can be acquired for public purpose; state has sovereign power, rules Allahabad High Court

A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar observed that, under the sovereign powers of the State, acquisition of religious places for public purposes is legally valid and not unconstitutional.

The writ petition was filed by six petitioners, who are tenants of shops in the Daalmandi market. They sought protection against alleged forcible eviction from their shops and requested the Court to restrain the deployment of police or other security forces. They also sought protection of six ancient mosques in the area and urged the authorities to develop an alternative route instead of widening the road through the existing alignment.

In its detailed judgment, the Court held that the petitioners are merely tenants and do not possess ownership rights over the properties.

It was observed that the petitioners had combined ordinary tenancy disputes with the highly sensitive issue of protection of religious places, making the writ legally untenable.

The Bench also noted that, despite it being a legal requirement, the petitioners had not made any formal demand to the competent authorities before approaching the Court for a writ of mandamus.

While dealing with the challenge to the proposed acquisition of the six ancient mosques, the Court interpreted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, holding that the Act is intended only to prevent the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship from one denomination to another and does not prohibit the State from acquiring land for public purposes.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated that no temple, mosque, church or any other religious place is immune from acquisition.

The Court observed that, in India's secular constitutional framework, all religious places stand on an equal footing and may be acquired in accordance with law for public utility or development projects.

The Court further found that the State Government and the concerned authorities are acting within the framework of law and that the Daalmandi road widening project is being undertaken in the public interest.

It also observed that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides adequate safeguards relating to compensation and rehabilitation for affected families, rendering the petitioners' apprehensions unfounded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had no legal basis to claim the relief sought. However, it clarified that the judgment would not prejudice the rights of the concerned Waqf Board or the Mutawallis of the mosques, should they choose to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the competent forum in the future. (ANI)