'Issue Of National Security': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Pleas Against Eviction Notices Issued To Mosques, Dargahs At Indo-Pak Border

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to Mosques, Madrasas and Dargahs situated within 50km of the India-Pakistan border, observing that the matter pertained to national security and was not a case of religious discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]

The court was hearing a batch of pleas by various Madrasas, Mosques, and Dargahs challenging validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices issued by the state authorities, qua the petitioners' properties and constructions situated within a radius of approximately 50 km from the Indo–Pakistan border.

Justice Sameer Jain referred to Ministry of Home Affairs' notification of 11.10.2021, under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, as per which the  Central Government enhanced and rationalized the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of the Border Security Force in border areas, including regions extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border. Observing that the step was taken in larger public interest, the court said:

"The said notification reflects a conscious policy decision taken at the highest level, having regard to the prevailing security scenario, intelligence inputs, and the need for effective prevention of transborder crimes such as smuggling, infiltration, and other activities prejudicial to national security. Thus, any administrative or regulatory action undertaken by the competent authorities within the notified zone, particularly in relation to unauthorized  constructions or activities, is required to be viewed in the backdrop of the enlarged statutory framework and heightened security considerations.

This Court places on record its appreciation for the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 11 October 2021, which reflects a considered and bona fide exercise of statutory powers in the interest of national security and public safety. The decision to enhance and rationalize the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force in sensitive border areas manifests a proactive and well-calibrated approach to address emerging security challenges, including infiltration, trans-border crimes, and other threats to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Such measures, undertaken in good faith and backed by legislative authority, demonstrate the commitment of the State to safeguard its territorial integrity while ensuring that governance remains responsive to evolving ground realities. The notification, therefore, deserves due acknowledgment as a step taken in larger public interest, reinforcing the constitutional duty of the State to protect the nation and its citizens"

The court also said that there was an "attempt to attribute a communal colour" to the action which it said is wholly misplaced and devoid of factual foundation.

It said:

"The material placed on record indicates that notices have been issued across the board, without reference to any particular community, wherever structures are found to be unauthorized and situated within the sensitive border belt. Thus, it has to be made cautiously unambiguous that the issue at hand is one of national security and regulatory compliance, and not of religious discrimination. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the petitioners themselves conceded that in situations involving a threat to national security, appropriate action may be undertaken by the competent authorities. At the same time, it is neither prudent nor desirable to disclose sensitive intelligence inputs in open proceedings, as such disclosure may synonms itself compromise security interests".

At the outset the court observed that petitions suffer from inherent deficiencies, particularly with regard to locus standi, identity of the petitioners, and absence of cogent material establishing their nexus with the concerned Masjid, Madrasa, or Dargah, as no credible documents, resolutions, or authorizations from any legally recognized body or society have been placed on record, in most of the petitions.

The court further said that admittedly in several petitions no permission, as mandatorily required under Section 5(Restrictions on use of public places for religious purposes) and 6(Constructions etc. of public religious buildings) of the Religious Buildings Act, was ever obtained for establishment of the religious structures, and no application seeking such permission was ever moved before the appropriate authority i.e. Collector.

"Consequently, the structures in question prima facie fall within the category of unauthorized and unpermitted constructions", the court said. 

The State argued that the petitioners have erected permanent constructions, without any valid permission or authorization, without requisite sanction, approval, or lawful conversion, as per the legal framework. It was further alleged by the respondents that the said structures/properties are located within a range of 0–50 km from the international border (Indo-Pak Border), falling within a notified or prohibited zone, and have been established without due permission.

The respondents primarily contended that on the basis of available records, documentary material, complaints, and inputs purportedly received through intelligence sources, the existence and operation of such structures may pose a threat to national security. 

Meanwhile the petitioners contended that neither adequate show-cause notices have been served, nor has any meaningful opportunity of personal hearing been afforded to the petitioners. It was submitted that the statutory mandate under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, particularly Section 90A thereof, has not been adhered to in its true letter and spirit. It was contended that the legislative intent underlying Section 90A is not merely regulatory but also facilitative, inasmuch as it enables regularization of land use, subject to satisfaction of statutory conditions.

The court said that the reliance of the petitioners on Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, was unfounded as the judgment  pertained to use of bulldozers upon the land/property belonging to criminals/convicts/accused, and thus, "even in the wildest dreams" it cannot be kept at the same pedestal at that of the present case where the property was in vicinity of international border and the issue was of national security.

It further held that the statutory scheme under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides an adequate and efficacious remedy to the petitioners and thus the pleaswerenot maintainable at the stage of show-cause, as disputed questions of fact were involved and statutory remedies were unexhausted.

"this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have abstained from participation," it held.

Dismissing the petitions court however directed constitution of a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, to examine cases (on individual basis) involving sensitive properties.

Case title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279