Ujjain Shahi Masjid: MP High Court Disposes Appeal Against Demolition Notice After Mosque Committee, Municipal Corporation Reach Settlement

“The matter was already settled between the appellant and the corporation, details of which are not available to the court.”

The appeal arose from a Single Judge order, who had dismissed two writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Corporation for removal of a portion of the Shahi Masjid to facilitate widening of the road to 15 metres ahead of the Simhastha Kumbh.

The original petitions had been filed by two groups claiming to administer the Masjid, which is registered as waqf property. They had challenged the Corporation's demolition notice proposing removal of a portion of the Masjid for the road-widening project.

During the hearing of appeal before the Division Bench, counsel for the appellant submitted that there was presently “a lot of chaos in Ujjain” and requested that the settlement reached with the Municipal Corporation be formally recorded.

Counsel also expressed apprehension that the terms agreed upon by the Corporation may not ultimately be honoured.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that after the Single Judge's order, the authorised administrative committee had been given an opportunity to remove the portion in question itself. It was also argued that the present writ appeal was not maintainable as it had been filed by a non-authorised faction.

The respondents further submitted that more than 80 structures had been removed as part of the road-widening project, most of them temples, and that less than 10% of the total area of the mosque was proposed to be demolished.

The respondents also showed two videos to the Bench which, according to them, showed the administration removing the structures of the mosque itself pursuant to the settlement reached with the Municipal Corporation.

In view of the settlement, the respondents prayed that the appeal be disposed of.

Accepting the prayer, the Bench disposed of the appeal.

At the same time, it addressed the appellant's apprehension regarding implementation of the Corporation's commitments, making it clear that the assurances given by the Municipal Corporation in its reply and the impugned notice would be binding upon it.

“Needless to say that the assurances made by the Municipal Corporation in their reply and impugned notice shall be binding on the corporation”.