Right To Practice Religion Has No Nexus With Particular Place: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea To Rebuild Takiya Masjid In Ujjain

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while reiterating that right to practice religion has no nexus with a particular place dismissed a Petition seeking reconstruction of Ujjain's Takiya Masjid filed by a litigant who used to offer Namaaz there.

The Court was considering an Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against an order dismissing the Writ Petition filed for reconstruction of mosque.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed, "....we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners have no locus to seek reconstruction of the Masjid. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court."

The Appellants were represented by Advocate Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi while the Respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Anand Soni.

It was the case of the Appellants that they are the local residents of Ujjain and used to offer namaz in Takiya Masjid established around 200 years ago and declared as the Waqf property by way of publication in the Official Gazette.

In order to expand the parking space of Mahakal Lok Parishar, Ujjain, the Respondent-Authorities had initiated land acquisition proceedings. The Appellants came to know that after passing of the award, the compensation had been distributed to the encroachers. After acquisition of the land on which the Masjid was situated, the Authorities demolished the Masjid.

Aggrieved by the said action of demolition of the Masjid, the Appellants approached the Writ Court seeking direction to the Respondents for reconstruction of the said Masjid and initiation of enquiry against the Authorities.

The Authorities, in the affidavit filed, stated that the land in question was acquired after following due process of law, thereafter, compensations were paid and all the properties are now vested with the State Government and hence, there cannot be any illegality in demolishing the Masjid to make the land vacant for the purpose of expansion of the parking area.

It was argued that the Appellants have no locus to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Others v/s C.K. Rajan & Others (2003), the Appellants, being devotees, have the right to file a Writ Petition for reconstruction of the Masjid where they used to offer namaz. The action of the Respondents amounts to infringement and violation of religious rights as guaranteed under Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that it is settled law that once any property is declared as Waqf property, it remains Waqf property forever, therefore, the same has wrongly been acquired by the State Government.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General placing reliance upon a judgement delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad argued that a person may go to a particular mosque to offer prayers if it exists; he may go to another mosque if the one in which he offered prayer earlier ceased to exist, or he may offer prayers even in his house or elsewhere as after the acquisition of the property, the right to use that property for the purpose of offering prayers may be lost, but that does not militate against the guarantee contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of India which is a right of a person to practice his religion in his house or elsewhere.

The Court agreed with the contention of the Additional Advocate General and denied to grant the relief.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohammed Taiyab and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2025:MPHC-IND:29259)

Appearances:

Appellants - Advocate Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi

Respondents - Additional Advocate General Anand Soni, Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena

Click here to read/ download Order