'Right To Practice Religion Has No Nexus With Particular Place': MP High Court Rejects Plea To Rebuild Ujjain's Takiya Masjid

Dismissing a plea seeking reconstruction of Ujjain's Takiya Masjid by litigants who used to offer namaaz there, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that right to practice religion has no nexus with a particular place and this right is not infringed by acquisition of a land having a mosque. The high court referred to Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohammad Ali Khan v Special Land Acquisition Office (1978) which had held that "profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed in Article 25 is a personal right which has to be exercised by the individual. It has no nexus with the place or territory where it has to be exercised".The Allahabad High Court had further said 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. It had also said that "acquisition of land on which a mosque may exist cannot be held to deprive him of his right to freely practise the religion". In view of this decision, a division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi in its order held:"In view of the above discussion, 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 court was hearing an appeal which had dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. The appellants had argued that they are local residents of Ujjain and used to offer namaz in the mosque, which is stated to have been established 200 years ago and was declared a Waqf property on December 13, 1985. The appellants said that they discovered that the State had initiated land acquisition proceedings to expand the parking space of Mahakal Lok Parishar in Ujjain. It was later discovered that the government acquired the Masjid land and demolished the structure, after passing an award compensating the encroachers. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the single judge seeking directions for the reconstruction of the masjid and to initiate an inquiry against the government officials responsible, which was dismissed.The State claimed that various petitions were filed by the acutely affected persons claiming to be in occupation and possession of the land, which were dismissed by the writ court. It was claimed that the disputed land was acquired after due process of law. The single judge dismissed the petition, observing that the acquisition proceedings had attained finality and that the Waqf Board had filed a civil suit against the State claiming the right to receive compensation. Counsel for the appellants, citing the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v C.K. Rajan (2003), claimed that, being devotees, they have a right to file a writ petition for the reconstruction of the Masjid, where they used to offer namaz. It was claimed that the actions of the State amounted to a violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Emphasizing the settled principle- once a property has been declared as Waqf Property, it remains a Waqf Property- the petitioners claimed that the Masjid was acquired wrongly. Additional Advocate General for the State refuted the claims of illegal acquisition, maintaining that the proceedings had attained finality. The bench noted that the Masjid and the land were acquired following due process of law, observing that compensation was distributed to a number of persons who were in possession. "The petitioners are seeking relief of reconstruction of the Masjid and enquiriy against the respondents. Admittedly, Masjid and the land have been acquired by following due process of law. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the compensation, distributed it to a number of persons who were in possession and dismantled the Masjid. The M.P. Waqf Board, which is claiming title over the property had already approached the M.P. Waqf Tribunal" the court added. The court also noted that the appellants were challenging the acquisition proceedings but not seeking to quash the proceedings in the relief clause. Therefore, it was held that without seeking the relief of quashment of acquisition proceedings and award, the relief for restoration could not be granted. "Although the petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings, but not seeking quashment of the same in the relief clause, therefore, without seeking relief of quashment of the acquisition proceedings and award, the relief of restoration of the property and the consequential relief of construction and possession cannot be granted", the court added. The bench, concurring with the principle established in Mohammad Ali Khan case, noted that the appellants had no locus to seek reconstruction of the Masjid and dismissed the writ appeal. Case Title: Mohammed Taiyab v State of MP [WA-2782-2025]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw ...

'Right To Practice Religion Has No Nexus With Particular Place': MP High Court Rejects Plea To Rebuild Ujjain's Takiya Masjid

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags