The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging the demolition of a portion of Shahi Masjid for a 15-meter road-widening project near the Mahakaleshwar Temple and Kshipra River in Ujjain.

The court held that the municipal action was taken as per statutory process and natural justice and rejected allegations of violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A.

The court affirmed that the Corporation acted without bias, noting similar action had been taken against 80 religious structures across the city to ease traffic congestion.

The Bench of Justice Sandeep M Bhatt held, "Therefore, considering the upcoming event of the Simhastha Kumbh, 2028, whereby the expectations of crores of devotees are required to be kept in mind, as well as the need to provide better facilities and to manage the traffic of such events; and considering the situation of the premises in question, which is almost opposite to the Mahakaleshwar Temple and very near to the Kshipra River; and for the consideration of the larger public safety and larger public interest, the action taken by the respondent is found to be after following the necessary provisions of law. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is called for. Both the petitions are found meritless and deserve to be dismissed."


Advocate Jagdish Baheti appeared for the Petitioners, while Dy. AG Sonal Gupta appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

Two petitions were filed claiming an interest in the religious place and are administering the affairs of the Masjid, which is registered as a Waqf property.

The petitioners had challenged the impugned action of the Respondent/Corporation in issuing a notice for the demolition of a portion of the Masjid for the purpose of road widening to the extent of 15 meters.

Contentions of the Parties

It was contended by the Petitioners that the property in question is an ancient structure that has existed for generations. The proposed demolition would tear down a portion of the prayer hall (Jamat Khana) of the mosque, a 120-foot-tall minaret, and the Mazhar Chouk Shahi. The Petitioners also submitted the detailed historical background of the matter.

The Petitioners further submitted that the impugned action of the Respondent/Authority as well as the State violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner pointed out that there are other properties in the immediate vicinity that the Corporation has left untouched. The Petitioner contended that, as evident from the photographs, those adjacent properties are also required to be demolished to achieve the intended widening of the road. 

The Respondent/Corporation submitted a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was submitted that one of the Petitioners was no longer the President, as a new committee/institution was constituted by the M.P. Waqf Board.

It was also submitted that, along this stretch of approximately 1.5 kilometres, almost all obstructing structures have already been removed, except for the subject construction and the structure situated directly opposite to it.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court noted that the factual position and chronology of the events clearly indicated that a notice under Section 305 for the purpose of the Indore Development Plan, 2035, was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner. 

"Furthermore, authorities in the city of Ujjain have taken action against the construction of about 80 religious places 80 religious places in total. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent Corporation is acting in an arbitrary manner or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India", the Court observed.

The Court also added that it cannot be said that the respondent authority was taking any action in an unfair and biased manner which violates Articles 14, 25, 26, or 300-A.

It was held, "The other contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner, that the respondent can find an alternative route by taking some portion of the land from the garden, as well as the commercial property situated opposite the mosque, are also not found to be correct. Looking at the situation of the property and the expansion required for the existing road, such contentions are not found to be genuine and are required to be rejected, as there is no scope for opting for such an alternative method under the facts of the present case."

The Court highlighted that the population of the city has increased and in such a case the Respondent Corporation was empowered to take action by following the necessary statutory provisions.

The Court concluded, "The Corporation has already taken all necessary actions available under the law while strictly observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the actions of the respondent authorities, including the Corporation and the State, cannot be considered arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, or violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution of India Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.

Cause Title: Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:25189]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocates Jagdish Baheti, Aaditya Dubey and Prabuddha Singh.

Respondents: Dy. AG Sonal Gupta and Advocate Rishi Tiwari

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: