The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking the reconstruction of the Takiya Masjid in Ujjain, ruling that the right to practice one’s religion does not guarantee the right to a particular place of worship, and that acquiring land on which a mosque once stood does not itself infringe on religious freedoms. The petitioners were residents of Ujjain who had previously offered namaaz at the mosque, established around 200 years ago and formally declared a Waqf property in 1985. They contended that the State had initiated land acquisition proceedings to expand the parking space for Mahakal Lok Parishar, ultimately acquiring the site of the mosque, demolishing it, and compensating persons deemed to be encroachers. The petitioners alleged the acquisition was wrongful and sought orders for reconstruction of the mosque and inquiry into officials’ conduct, asserting violations of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
In its judgment, the division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi referenced long-standing legal precedents, including the 1978 Allahabad High Court decision in Mohammad Ali Khan v. Special Land Acquisition Office, which held that the religious rights under Article 25 are personal rights distinct from any particular structure or location; a person may offer prayers at any mosque, or even at home, and acquisition of land where a mosque stands does not amount to deprivation of the right to practise religion. The Court found that the State had followed due procedure in the land acquisition: it had awarded compensation, distributed it to persons in possession, and the process had attained finality. The MP Waqf Board had also approached the Waqf Tribunal regarding title claims.
The petitioners did not seek in their relief the quashing of the acquisition proceedings or the award passed, which the Court held was essential to restore possession of the property and order reconstruction. Absent such a claim, the Court concluded that restoration and consequential relief could not be granted. The bench held that the petitioners lacked locus to seek the reconstruction, and found no merit in interfering with the earlier orders. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing that constitutional guarantees to practice religion do not include a right to rebuild a specific place lest contrary legal acquisitions attaining finality be reopened without proper relief sought.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.