While dismissing a Petition of a man who was seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings on a public land which he claimed was his private property, the Allahabad High Court has held that once use of the land extends to regular or organized congregational activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking a direction commanding the respondent authority to provide him security/protection and permission of the prayer (Namaz) at his private premises.

The Division Bench of Justice Garima Prashad and Justice Saral Srivastava held, “Private property may be used for personal and limited religious activity so long as it remains genuinely private, occasional and nondisruptive; however, once such use extends to regular or organized congregational activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control.”

“The introduction or expansion of a religious use or practice not previously prevalent, particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 and 26. The State is not required to wait for actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect public life”, it added.

Advocate Intekhab Alam Khan represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the petitioner, Namaz has been offered on a piece of land at Village Ikona, District Sambhal, which he claims to be his private property. He alleged that the respondent authorities were restraining such prayers. The petitioner asserted ownership over the land on the basis of a registered gift deed and contended that the restraint violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution, as persons professing Islam are entitled to offer Namaz without interference. However, the respondent authorities claimed that the petitioner was attempting to introduce regular large-scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the village.

Reasoning

Highlighting the difference between public and private properties, the Bench explained that private prayer, family worship, and such limited devotional activity are genuinely internal to the premises and ordinarily fall within the protected domain of Articles 25 and 26. “This protection, however, is confined to activity that is truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive. It does not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue”, it added.

The Bench further stated that once the activity assumes a congregational character, it is no longer merely a matter of inward faith, and the activity assumes a public or quasi-public dimension. “It is not that the private property loses all protection, but that the use of such property, to that extent, no longer remains purely private for constitutional purposes and becomes amenable to reasonable regulation”, it mentioned.

“Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. This approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law. While the State must permit private worship, it is equally bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises. Maintaining this balance is essential to the working of Articles 25 and 26 in a constitutional system”, the order read.

On a perusal of the case records, the Bench found that the land in question is recorded as public land, and the claim of ownership rests entirely on a purported gift deed that did not contain basic land particulars such as Gata or Khata numbers and was based only on vague boundary descriptions. “Such a document does not establish any identifiable title and cannot displace the revenue record”, it added.

The Bench held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought as the record showed that he was not protecting an existing practice, but seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings, including persons from within and outside the village. Considering that Namaz was earlier offered only on specific occasions such as Eid, the Bench held that expansion beyond a limited private sphere fell outside the protected domain and was subject to regulation.

Thus, holding that no enforceable legal right was made out, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Aseen v.State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:74259-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Intekhab Alam Khan, Janardan Singh

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Garima Prashad

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.