Syed Rashid Ali And 5 Others vs State Of Up And 14 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16649 of 2026
Syed Rashid Ali and others …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi,
Additional Advocate General along
with Mr. Suresh Singh, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for State
Mr. Vineet Sankalp, Advocate for
Nagar Nigam, Varanasi
Mr. Ravi Prakash Pandey, Advocate
for Varanasi Development Authority,
Varanasi
RESERVED
Court No. - 2
HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON’BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
This writ petition has been instituted by six petitioners, who are
tenants and shopkeepers of six shops situate in Dalmandi Market/Street,
Varanasi. They pray that this Court do issue multiple directions in the

2
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
nature of mandamus against the respondents, that they say are essential to
protect their rights of myriad kind, as would be presently seen.
2. The foremost command the petitioners wish this Court to issue is
one directing the respondents not to dispossess them from their respective
shops and buildings, situate at Dalmandi Market/Street arbitrarily and
illegally, and in violation of their legal as well as human rights.
3. The second and the third reliefs, which the petitioners seek, are in
aid of the first, and both of those reliefs are directed to prevent the
respondents from deploying workmen, the Police and the paramilitary
forces to effect their dispossession, as aforesaid, or harass or threaten
them in order to forcefully dispossess them from their respective
premises.
4. The fourth relief is a distinct and different relief, by which, the
petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to take over and change the
character of the six ancient mosques existing at Dalmandi Street, prior to
th
the 15 day of August, 1947, to wit, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid
Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid
Nisaran and Masjid Sangamarmar.
5. The last of the reliefs, which the petitioners seek, is a mandamus
directing the respondents to develop any other alternative street nearer the
Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor in order to widen and strengthen the

3
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
same for the sake of easy movement and commutation of pilgrims,
devotees and tourists visiting the Dham.
6. In substance, therefore, what the petitioners seek is, in the first part,
protection of their possession in their respective shops located at
Dalmandi Market/Street, where they do business, and, in the second,
preservation of the six old mosques, that are likely to give way to the
project for widening and beautification of street as part of development of
the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor.
7. The facts of this case are that the petitioners are tenants and
shopkeepers of shops, which bear the following number :
1. CK43/168-169;
2. CK68/1;
3. CK69/32;
4. CK43/147;
5. CK68/36; and
6. CK43/181
All the aforesaid shops are situate at Dalmandi Market/Street,
Varanasi. The petitioners say that they have been engaged in their
respective business in these shops for decades. Prior to the petitioners
taking up business in these shops, their ancestors were engaged in running
the same business in the very shops and premises that the petitioners now
occupy. In short, they say that not only their business, but also their

4
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
business premises are now legacy in their hands. They have brought on
record lease agreements, rent slips and electricity bills relating to their
respective shops in order to substantiate their claim, all annexed to the
writ petition as Annexure No. 1.
8. The petitioners further say that they have been doing active and
continuous business in the respective shops at Dalmandi Market/Street for
decades, as they say, and in proof thereof, they have produced some still
photographs of the shops, which they have annexed to the writ petition.
According to the petitioners’ case, the Dalmandi Market is a busy and
dense area, which has existed for centuries. People from all over the
Purvanchal visit this market for shopping and purchase of necessaries and
other things of use. It is a market that serves not only Varanasi, but also
the entire Purvanchal. The Dalmandi Market is located in a stretch of 650
meters, which houses 187 buildings. These buildings have existed, as
already said, for a long period of time. The buildings house more than
1000 shops. Dalmandi is a densely populated area, which is dominated by
members of a particular religious community, to wit, the Muslims. More
than 97% of the shopkeepers and owners of the buildings are Muslims
and they have been carrying on their profession and business for decades
together. No one has interfered in the peaceful business and occupation of
the petitioners and other occupants until the month of July 2025.

5
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
9. The petitioners say that they were utterly surprised, as also the other
shopkeepers and residents of Dalmandi, when a Government Order dated
31.03.2025, followed by another dated 30.7.2025, were issued by the
State Government, allocating a budget of ₹21,588.24 lakhs for the 21,588.24 lakhs for the
purpose of widening and beautification of the Dalmandi Street. It is
pointed out that the Dalmandi Street has a maximum width of 70 feet for
the present. The respondents propose to widen and strengthen the
Dalmandi Street for easy movement and commutation of tourists,
pilgrims, and devotees, who visit the Kashi Vishwanath Dham.
10. The distance of the Dalmandi Market from the Kashi Vishwanath
Mandir is about 800 meters towards the east. Adjacent to the Dalmandi is
Kodai Chowk and Sonar Gali, which are located at a distance of 100
meters from the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. However, the distance of
Dalmandi through Chowk is about 800 meters. The petitioners, therefore,
say that Dalmandi is much farther than Sonar Gali from the Kashi
Vishwanath Dham Corridor and the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. The
1
petitioners further plead that the Public Works Department seek to take
possession of the entire Dalmandi area for the purpose of its
beautification, widening and strengthening. The purpose and idea behind
the widening and beautification of Dalmandi Street is said by the
respondents to be ease of movement in commutation of pilgrims, who
come to visit the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi.
1 ‘PWD’ for short

6
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
11. After the Government Orders dated 31.03.2025 and 30.07.2025,
have been issued, the respondent-Authorities, their workmen and the
Police have been threatening the petitioners and harassing the other
shopkeepers and residents of the entire Dalmandi Market/Street for the
purpose of forcibly dispossessing them from the buildings in which their
shops are located, without resort to any provision of the law, in clear
violation of their rights.
12. The next fact that is pleaded is about a different right altogether. It
has nothing to do with the petitioners' right to freedom of trade, business
or livelihood, or its abridgment in consequence of the State’s decision to
widen the Dalmandi Street. It is about the right of the petitioners to
practice their religion, and more than that, protect old mosques, said to be
th
constructed prior to the 15 day of August, 1947 from losing their
existence to the proposed development. It is pleaded that in the Dalmandi
area, where old members of the Muslim community are working for the
occupation or living, there are six ancient mosques called Anjuman
Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid
Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran and Masjid Sangamarmar. All these
th
mosques have been constructed decades ago and decidedly, before the 15
day of August 1947. The petitioners have secured documents regarding
ownership and existence of some of the mosques and also photographed
them. Copies of the documents relating to these mosques and the original

7
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
photographs thereof from the Dalmandi Market/Street are annexed to the
writ petition as the Fifth Annexure. It is pleaded in paragraph no. 15 that
the said mosques are also proposed to be demolished by the respondents,
in the garb of enforcing Government Orders dated 31.03.2025 and
30.07.2025 for the purpose of widening and beautification of the
Dalmandi Street/Market.
13. The petitioners somehow secured, under the Right to Information
2
Act, 2005 from the PWD, Varanasi information to show that the six
ancient mosques are also proposed to be taken over and demolished. The
PWD sent their reply that all the six mosques in question are said to be
acquired and taken over by the respondents. A copy of the reply from the
PWD, Varanasi under the RTI is also on record to the writ petition and
annexed to it. It is emphasised that there is no urgency and necessity for
public purpose that may move the respondents to widen the Dalmandi
Street. It is emphasised that no notification mentioning the purpose of
widening of the Dalmandi Street has so far been published by the
Government. It is averred that no public purpose, which the respondents
say is involved, would be served by depriving thousands of citizens of
their right to livelihood and shelter as also their right to worship by
demolishing the six ancient mosques located in the area. The proposed
decision of the respondents to widen the Dalmandi Street is, therefore,
2 ‘RTI’ for short

8
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
perverse, arbitrary and illegal, and above all, one, in violation of The
3
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 .
14. It is next pleaded that without issue of a preliminary notification
under Section 11 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
4
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , the
respondents, in collusion with each other, have commenced demolishing
shops and buildings forcibly and without due process of law, all located in
the Dalmandi Market/Street, in the name of the aforesaid Government
Orders dated 31.03.2025 and 30.07.2025.
15. It is specifically pleaded that for their protection, in matter of acting
dehors the law, the other respondents and officers of the Nagar Nigam
have manufactured a representation given by one Sanjay Singh, who has
written to the Nagar Nigam, that some buildings in the Dalmandi Market
are in a dilapidated condition and need to be demolished by the Nagar
Nigam. In the garb of acting on the said representation dated 29.01.2026,
the respondents, with the aid of the Police and the paramilitary forces,
encircled the entire Dalmandi area and demolished 29 buildings from
09.02.2026 until date. A copy of the representation dated 29.01.2026
addressed to the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi by Dr. Sanjay
Singh Gautam is on record of the writ petition as an annexure. The Nagar
Nigam have a list of buildings that are dilapidated in the entire city of
3 ‘Act of 1991’ for short
4 ‘Act of 2013’ for short

9
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Varanasi. However, no buildings have so far been demolished, except
those located in the Dalmandi Street/Market. A copy of the dilapidated
buildings drawn up by the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is also annexed to the
writ petition.
16. The petitioners and other similarly situate persons affected by the
illegal demolition of the buildings, where their premises are located, have
captured some still photographs of the demolition carried out by the
respondents and their workmen, officers and police personnel. Copies of
the photographs of demolition are placed on the record of the writ
petition. The petitioners have received threats from the respondents,
asking them to vacate their respective shops and premises, without due
process of law. The respondents threatened human rights of the petitioners
as well as have threatened to forcibly dispossess the petitioners from their
respective shops and premises, without providing them resettlement,
relocation and rehabilitation, which are their legal rights, provided under
the Act of 2013. The petitioners are being deprived of the right to
livelihood and shelter, pushing them to the verge of starvation.
17. There are other odd pleadings in paragraphs nos. 25 and 26 of the
writ petition, which show that the purpose behind the demolition of the
residential shops and buildings and the proposed widening is extraneous
and directed to target a particular community at the instance of the ruling
dispensation in the State. Again, extraneous motives are imputed to the

10
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Government and the respondent-Authorities in paragraph no. 27 of the
writ petition. It is next said that apart from this, thousands of citizens,
including the petitioners, are said to be deprived of their livelihood,
whereas only about 30 residential buildings are situate in the Sonar Gali, a
far more suitable and easier site for widening and strengthening of the
pilgrims’ route during their commutation and movement, while visiting
the Kashi Vishwanath Dham.
18. A Social Impact Study Report prepared by an agency called ENV
DAS India (Pvt.) Ltd. Developmental Assistance India Private Limited,
Lucknow, that was forwarded to the Land Acquisition Officer, shows that
the shopkeepers in the Dalmandi Street are tenants belonging to the
Muslim community. They would be deprived of their livelihood, in the
event they are dispossessed by widening of the Dalmandi Market/Street,
one of the oldest markets. The said report also says that every now and
then, demolition drive is carried out by the respondents, curtailing legal
and human rights of the shopkeepers and residents in the area. This is
emphasised that there are heaps of debris, scattered over the entire
Dalmandi area, that have made business difficult for shopkeepers. The
business of the petitioners and other men of commerce at the Dalmandi
have been ruined by the threats extended by the respondents, the Police
and the paramilitary forces who are deployed in the area and patrolling it.

11
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
19. It is particularly urged that the Parliament has passed the Act of
1991 with the object and purpose of prohibiting conversion of any place
of worship and to provide for maintenance of the religious character of
any place of worship, as it existed on 15.08.1947, and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. The character that is to be
th
preserved is one that existed on the 15 day of August 1947. Various
provisions of the Act of 1991 have been copiously pleaded in order to
bring home the point as to how the said Act would be violated, if the six
mosques, located in the Dalmandi, are included in the development
scheme.
20. It is pleaded that by virtue of Section 4 of the Act of 1991, no
acquisition, as proposed by the respondents, could be made. Therefore,
any notification or Government Order, making a proposal for the
acquisition of the mosques in Dalmandi is per se illegal and arbitrary,
besides being one in violation of legal and human rights of the petitioners,
apart from other members of the Muslim community. It is emphasised that
according to the Social Impact Study Report, 50% of the families reside in
Dalmandi and 45% of them live at other places, but have their business
there. The Social Impact Study Report also mentions the six ancient
mosques present in the Dalmandi. The petitioners allege violation of their
fundamental rigths under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(a) and 300(a) of the

12
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Constitution. It is broadly on these pleadings that the petitioners seek
relief in the present petition.
21. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, there is
5
appended a letter from the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow
dated 23.04.2026 from the Chief Executive Officer of the Board with the
Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi. It is a response
to the letter dated 17.04.2026 from the Executive Engineer to the Chief
Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, where properties of certain Waqf
were intimated to be wholly or entirely affected by some project, with
particulars of the premises number furnished to the Waqf Board. In the
reply of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, six mosques are
mentioned with their premises number and the relative Waqf number. The
names of respective Mutawalli of the six Waqf are also mentioned. It is
said, at the tail end of the letter, that proceedings for acquisition of any
Waqf property have to be taken in accordance with Sections 51 and 91 of
The Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and
6
Development Act, 1995 .
22. It is the petitioner's case, in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary
affidavit, that the Waqf Board could not issue guidelines/instructions to
the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi, in
contravention of Sections 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The proviso to
5 ‘Waqf Board’ for short
6 ‘Waqf Act, 1995’ for short

13
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Section 51(a) stiputes that acquisition shall not be in contravention of the
Act of 1991. Therefore, no acquisition proceedings could be taken of the
places of worship, which are within the purview of Section 4 of the Act of
1991. It is also averred that the Waqf Board, in connivance with other
Authorities concerned, issued the said letter dated 22.04.2026, saying that
said ancient mosques would be taken over in acquisition proceedings.
There are assertions in paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit that
the six ancient mosques situate at Dalmandi are covered under Section 4
of the Act of 1991, which cannot be acquired in any mode whatsoever, as
also with the consent of the officer bearers/management of the said
ancient mosques.
23. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Mr. Vineet
Sankalp, learned Counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and
Mr. Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
7
Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi .
24. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has supported the writ petition
on the various grounds already noticed above.
7 ‘VDA’ for short

14
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
25. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the State has submitted that the writ petitioners acknowledge that they are
tenants and shopkeepers of different shops in Dalmadi Market/Street
bearing numbers CK43/168-169, CK68/1, CK69/32, CK43/147, CK68/36
and CK43/181. In support of this claim of theirs, the petitioners have
certain copies of rent agreements, rent slips and electricity bills, out of
which, three in number are unregistered agreements on non-judicial
stamps in the form of notarial affidavit. The inference is, therefore, clear
that they are not owners of the buildings in question, but tenants.
26. A perusal of the writ petition clearly demonstrates that the
petitioners have not submitted any application, relating to the reliefs
which they seek before this Court by the issue of an mandamus. Under the
law governing mandamus, it cannot generally be granted, unless the
petitioner has first made a formal demand for justice before the authority
sought to be commanded, who has refused to oblige or is completely
inactive. A mandamus is an extraordinary prerogative writ rather than a
right. It is a settled law that demand for justice and its refusal must
proceed with filing of a writ petition, praying for the issue of a
mandamus. It must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct
demand by the party applying for a mandamus. Reference is made to the
consistent holding of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Syndicate Ltd. v.

15
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
8 9
Union of India , Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise and
10
Kamini Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal , where it has been held that
before approaching a High Court, the absence of a prior written
representation of demand for justice renders the petition fundamentally
defective.
27. It is emphasised by the learned Additional Government Advocate
that the petitioners have annexed a letter dated 03.06.2025 issued by the
Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Varanasi, addressed to
one Mirza Saif Baig, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it
has been clearly found that land/building, which may be utilised for
widening of the road, may be taken after execution of sale deeds, on the
basis of mutual agreement, as provided under the Government Order
dated 19.03.2015 or acquired under the Act of 2013. The Act of 2013
clearly provides compensation for land owners and rehabilitation and
resettlement, entitlement for all affected families, in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act, which includes the First and the Second
Schedule. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners are unfounded.
The land/building falling under the area of road widening is being taken
up for execution of sale deeds on the basis of agreement and payment of
appropriate compensation, and those who do not agree for execution of
sale deeds on the basis of agreement, proceedings have been initiated for
8 AIR 1975 SC 460
9 AIR 1975 SC 538
10 AIR 1972 SC 2060

16
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
acquisition of the land/building under the Act of 2013, and in this regard,
notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 has been issued after
completing necessary formalities, that insofar action being taken by the
VDA or the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is concerned, that is quite
independent of the State Government acquiring land for road widening in
accordance with the Act of 2013. Those bodies are proceeding in
individual cases under The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and
11
Development Act, 1973 or The Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation
12
Act, 1959 . Those proceedings are on considerations relevant under the
last mentioned statutes, which the Municipal Corporation and the
Development Authority are charged with their obligation of
implementing.
28. It is next submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate
General that the petitioner have referred to six mosques in the Dalmandi
area in paragraphs nos. 14, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the writ petition, which
cannot be disturbed, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1991. They
have referred to the provisions of Sections 2(a), 2(b), 4 and 7 of the Act of
1991. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that neither the
Act of 1991 nor the Waqf Act, 1995 prohibits land acquisition under the
Act of 2013. The Act of 1991 does not prohibit the Government from
acquiring religious land for larger public purposes. Under the Act of 2013,
11 ‘Act of 1973’ for short
12 ‘Act of 1959’ for short

17
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
the Government has the sovereign power to acquire any property,
including religious property, for public purpose, such as building roads,
highways or public infrastructure. The Act of 2013 allows this, provided
that fair compensation, and where applicable, rehabilitation are granted.
The Act of 1991 is intended solely to prevent conversion of a public place
of worship from one religion or denomination to that of another religion
or another denomination of the same religion, thus preserving status quo
th
as existed on 15 August, 1947. The Act of 1991 is not a shield against
acquisition by the State for public purpose or welfare. Learned Additional
Advocate General, in this regard, has placed reliance upon the authority of
this Court in Church of North India Trust Association v. Union of India
13
and others .
29. It is further argued that the petitioners have nowhere shown any
special authority with regard to the six mosques referred to in paragraph
no. 14. It is next submitted that the Waqf Act, 1995 does not prohibit to
take over of land of a Waqf, under the Act of 2013, subject only to the
provisions Sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is, in fact,
permissible under the provisions of Section 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act,
1995.
30. We have heard learned Counsel for parties at considerable length at
the motion stage.
13 2016 SCC OnLine All 1985 : AIR 2017 All 143

18
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
31. Upon hearing learned Counsel parties, what we find is that the
petitioners have mixed up their rights, some of which they have and some
of which they do not. The petitioners are admittedly tenants and
shopkeepers of six shops bearing numbers CK43/168-169, CK68/1,
CK69/32, CK43/147, CK68/36 and CK43/181, situate at Dalmandi
Market/Street, Varanasi. They are admittedly not the owners of the said
shops. It is true that they might have had their business in the said shops
since the time of their ancestors, but that would not grant them anything
more than their tenancy rights. They hold on lease agreements and rely on
rent slips, reiterating their status as tenants in six of the shops located in
Dalmandi. It is not that since their shops are running for a long time,
when their ancestors were doing the same business, that their rights have
been enlarged to some kind of a proprietorship.
32. As it appears, Rashid Ali, who a tenant in Shop No. CK-43/168-
169, whereof the owners are Haji Mohammad Saleem and Mohammad
Saleem pays a monthly rent and the rent receipt for the rent last paid by
him relating to the period August to December, 2004 is for sum of 1750. ₹21,588.24 lakhs for the
There is a photostat copy of the rent agreement annexed by petitioner no.
2, Mohammad Dilshad, who is a tenant in Shop No. CK68/36. The rent
agreement is dated 20.01.2023, where the landlord is one Syed Akhtar Ali.
A shop is held on a monthly rent of 2200. There are similar other rent ₹21,588.24 lakhs for the
agreements, where shops are held on whatever are the settled monthly

19
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
rents, evidenced in some cases by rent agreements, and in others, by rent
receipts. The rights of these petitioners are, therefore, limited to their
tenancies.
33. We note that the landlords and owners of the premises have not
come forward to question the road-widening project or its effect on their
properties. We would think that the petitioners are more or less here, in
order to protect their business and source of livelihood, rather than
proprietary rights. When it comes to acquisition of property under the Act
of 2013, it is largely the title holder who has locus to object, negotiate a
sale or suffer an acquisition. The tenant hardly has any rights. The
moment the owner's rights vest in the State either by transfer of land or
acquisition, the land vests free from all encumbrances in the State. May be
in the case of a sale deed, arrangement would have to be made about the
rights of the tenants, because, upon a voluntary transfer of property by
owner to the State for a negotiated consideration, the tenant might become
the State's tenant. That might not at all happen in case of acquisition. The
tenants, in a situation like this, would hardly have rights to question the
acquisition of property.
34. It also appears that in some cases, the Nagar Nigam is taking action
under the Act of 1959. That action would be on very different premises. It
would mostly be putting down certain structures that are dilapidated, in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959. No such notice has

20
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
been questioned in this petition by the petitioners, nor have they said that
they have been served any such notice by the Corporation. It is possibly
about some other buildings in the Dalmandi Street, which are dilapidated,
but not involved in this petition.
35. Likewise is the case with the action taken by the Development
Authority. Their province and powers are limited to the Act of 1973. They
usually proceed against a building for demolition under Section 27 of the
Act of 1973, if it is constructed without a sanctioned plan or map, or in
violation thereof. It is not the petitioner's case that they are facing any
demolition notice from the VDA or any proceedings for demolition under
Section 27 of the Act aforesaid have been initiated against them. Any
relief, therefore, sought against the Development Authority is besides the
point.
36. The petitioners, who are tenants in certain shops, as already said,
located in the Dalmandi Street, have mixed up another cause of action,
and that is about protecting the six mosques located in the Dalmandi area
from acquisition. They seem to urge that since they are Muslims, they
have a right to protect these mosques, that are Waqf properties. From the
primary cause of action involved in the writ petition, which is about
protecting shops, wherein the petitioners are tenants, protecting six
mosques located in the area, would make us think that the cause of action
is rather multifarious, and seeks to agitate very different kind of rights.

21
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
The mosques are admittedly registered Waqf, with their own Mutawalli in
each case. No doubt, members of the Muslim community may come
forward in certain cases, but essentially it is the Mutawalli and the Waqf
Board, who have to protect such properties. We have, nevertheless, heard
the petitioners on this issue as well. If we hear the petitioners on this issue
and pass judgment, it might prejudice the rights of the Mutawalli and the
Waqf Board, who might have something to say in the matter, and their
locus is pre-eminent, and not of the petitioners’.
37. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioners were, nevertheless,
very emphatic about their submissions that they have a right to ensure that
the mosques are not acquired, as it is a violation of the provisions of that
all-time shield, to wit, the Act of 1991, we have considered their
arguments in this regard, limited to their rights as members of the Muslim
community. They have relied upon the provisions of Section 2(b), 2(c), 3,
4 and 7 of the Act of 1991. These read :
2. Defintions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,–
...
(b) “conversion”, with its grammatical variations, includes
alteration or change of whatever nature;
(c) “place of worship” means a temple, mosque, gurudwara,
church, monastery or any other place of public religious
worship of any religious denomination or any section
thereof, by whatever name called.

22
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
3. Bar of conversion of places of worship .–No person shall
convert any place of worship of any religious denomination
or any section thereof into a place of worship of a
different section of the same religious denomination or of
a different religious denomination or any section thereof.
4. Declaration as to the religious character of certain
places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc. –
(1) It is hereby declared that the religious character of a
place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947
shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.
(2) If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal
or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the
religious character of any place of worship, existing on
the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending before any court,
tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate, and no
suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such
matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any
court, tribunal or other authority:
Provided that if any suit, appeal or other proceeding,
instituted or filed on the ground that conversion has taken
place in the religious character of any such place after
the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending on the
commencement of this Act, such suit, appeal or other
proceeding shall not so abate and every such suit, appeal
or other proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with
the provisions of sub-section (1).
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2) shall apply to,-
(a) any place of worship referred to in the said sub-
sections which is an ancient and historical monument or an
archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958
(24 of 1958) or any other law for the time being in force;
(b) any suit, appeal or other proceeding, with respect to
any matter referred to in sub-section (2), finally decided,
settled or disposed of by a court, tribunal or other
authority before the commencement of this Act;

23
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
(c) any dispute with respect to any such matter settled by
the parties amongst themselves before such commencement;
(d) any conversion of any such place effected before such
commencement by acquiescence;
(e) any conversion of any such place effected before such
commencement which is not liable to be challenged in any
court, tribunal or other authority being barred by
limitation under any law for the time being in force.
38. They have also relied upon the provisions of Sections 51 and 91 of
the Waqf Act, 1995. Sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995 read :
51. Alienation of waqf property without sanction of Board
to be void.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
waqf deed, any lease of any immovable property which is
waqf property, shall be void unless such lease is effected
with the prior sanction of the Board:
Provided that no mosque, dargah, khanqah, graveyard,
or imambara shall be leased except any unused graveyards in
the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh where
such graveyard has been leased out before the date of
commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (27 of
2013).
(1A) Any sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or transfer
of waqf property shall be void ab initio.
Provided that in case the Board is satisfied that any
waqf property may be developed for the purposes of the Act,
it may, after recording reasons in writing, take up the
development of such property through such agency and in
such manner as the Board may determine and move a
resolution containing recommendation of development of such
waqf property, which shall be passed by a majority of two-
thirds of the total membership of the Board:
Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall affect any acquisition of waqf properties for
a public purpose under [the Right to Fair Compensation and

24
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) or any other law
relating to acquisition of land if such acquisition is made
in consultation with the Board:
Provided also that-
(a) the acquisition shall not be in contravention of
the Places of Public Worship (Special Provisions)
Act, 1991 (42 of 1991);
(b) the purpose for which the land is being acquired
shall be undisputedly for a public purpose;
(c) no alternative land is available which shall be
considered as more or less suitable for that purpose;
and
(d) to safeguard adequately the interest and
objective of the waqf, the compensation shall be at
the prevailing market value or a suitable land with
reasonable solatium in lieu of the acquired property.
91. Proceedings under Act 1 of 1894.- (1) If, in the course
of proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) or under any law for
the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land
or other property, and before an award is made, in case the
property under acquisition is waqf property, a notice of
such acquisition shall be served by Collector on the Board
and further proceedings shall be stayed to enable the Board
to appear and plead as a party to the proceeding at any
time within three months from the date of the receipt of
such notice.
Explanation. –The reference to the Collector in the
foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, in relation
to any other law referred to therein, be construed, if the
Collector is not the competent authority under such other
law to make an award of the compensation or other amount
payable for acquisition of land or other property
thereunder, as a reference to the authority under such
other law competent to make such award.

25
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
(2) Where the Board has reason to believe that any
property under acquisition is waqf property, it may at any
time before the award is made appear and plead as a party
to the proceeding.
3) When the Board has appeared under the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), no order shall be passed
under section 77 or section 78 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) or
under the corresponding provisions of the other law
referred to in sub-section (1) without giving an
opportunity to the Board to be heard.
(4) Any order passed [under section 77 or section 78 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30
of 2013)] or under the corresponding provisions of the
other law referred to in sub-section (1) without giving an
opportunity to the Board to be heard, 2[shall be kept in
abeyance relating to portion of the property claimed by the
Board, if the Board), within one month of its coming to
know of the order, applies in this behalf to the authority
which made the order.
Provided that the Collector after hearing the parties
concerned shall make the order within one month of the
application of the Board.
39. The foremost to be considered is the Act of 1991, regarding which,
the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it would
make the acquisition of the mosques absolutely illegal, because these
th
mosques are in existence much prior to the 15 day of August, 1947. We
notice that the place of worship has been defined as a Temple, Mosque,
Gurudwara, Church, Monastery or any other place of public religious

26
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
worship of any religious denomination. Conversion means alteration or
change of whatever nature.
40. Section 3 of the Act of 1991 prohibits the conversion of a place of
worship of any religious denomination or a sect thereof into a place of
worship of another sect of the same religious denomination or a different
religious denomination.
41. Section 4 of the Act of 1991 makes a declaration that there shall be
no change in the religious character of a place of worship existing on the
th
15 day of August, 1947. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides that no
place of worship referred to in sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of
Section 4 of the Act of 1991, which is an ancient and historical
monument, or an archaeological site, or covered by the Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, shall be
covered by the declaration under Section 4.
42. Now, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1991 have to be harmoniously
construed, in particular, sub-Section (1) of Section 4. Read in isolation,
sub-Section (1) of Section 4 might seem to declare that the religious
th
character of a place of worship existing on the 15 day of August, 1947 is
immutable, to wit, if it was a temple, it will remain a temple, if a church,
it would remain that, and if a mosque, it would continue to be so. But
reading it this way, would be a misconstruction of the scope of the Statute.

27
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
When Section 4(1) of the Act of 1991 is read together with Section 3, it is
evident that there is a prohibition imposed by Section 3 upon any person
converting any place of worship of any religious denomination or a sect
thereof into a place of worship of a different sect of the same
denomination or to that of a different religious denomination. Sections 3
and 4 of the Act of 1991, when harmoniously construed, prevent the
religious character of a place of worship belonging to a religious
denomination from being changed into a place of worship of another
th
religious denomination, from whatever it was on the 15 day of August,
th
1947. In short, a temple on 15 August, 1947 cannot be converted to a
church or a mosque, and likewise, a mosque or a church to a temple. The
purport of the Act of 1991 is not to place beyond the pale of authority of
the State’s right as the owner paramount of all lands in the territory of
India and to acquire and use it for any public purpose, subject, of course,
to the owner's right to receive just and fair compensation. That is what the
doctrine of eminent domain, after all, means. The Act of 1991 is not
meant to derogate from that right of the State.
43. The object of the Act of 1991 also shows that it was enacted to
prohibit conversion of any place of worship and when read with Section
3, the scope of the Act is limited to conversion of a place of worship of
one religious denomination into another, or from one sect of the same

28
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
denomination into another. The Act of 1991 does not, at all, go beyond the
said prohibition.
44. Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended by Act No. 14 of
2025) provides, by virtue of the second proviso to sub-Section (1A) of
Section 51 that nothing contained in this sub-Section, that is to say, the
prohibition on sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or transfer of Waqf property
being void, shall affect any acquisition of Waqf properties for a public
purpose, under the Act of 2013, or any other law relating to acquisition of
land, if such acquisition is made in consultation with the Board. The
Board, of course, means the Waqf Board. The third proviso says that the
acquisition shall not be in contravention of the Act of 1991, the provision
upon which learned Counsel for the petitioner has much harped.
45. We have already held that the Act of 1991 prohibits the conversion
of place of worship of one religious denomination into another. It does not
derogate from the State's authority to acquire any place of religious
worship for a secular and public purpose, like development of a road or
augmentation of infrastructure or any similar activity. In this connection,
reference may be made to the remarks of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and others v. Union of India and
14
others , where it has been observed :
80. It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular
position in Muslim Law and once a mosque is established and
14 (1994) 6 SCC 360

29
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for
all time to come a property of Allah and the same never
reverts back to the donor or founder of the mosque and any
person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a
mosque and even if the structure is demolished, the place
remains the same where the namaz can be offered. As
indicated hereinbefore, in British India, no such
protection was given to a mosque and the mosque was
subjected to the provisions of statute of limitation
thereby extinguishing the right of Muslims to offer prayers
in a particular mosque lost by adverse possession over that
property.
81. Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act comprehends
the categories of properties known to Indian Law. Article
367 of the Constitution adopts this secular concept of
property for purposes of our Constitution. A temple, church
or mosque etc. are essentially immovable properties and
subject to protection under Articles 25 and 26. Every
immovable property is liable to be acquired. Viewed in the
proper perspective, a mosque does not enjoy any additional
protection which is not available to religious places of
worship of other religions.
82. The correct position may be summarised thus. Under the
Mahomedan Law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be
lost by adverse possession (See Mulla's Principles of
Mahomedan Law , 19th Edn., by M. Hidayatullah — Section 217;
and Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurdwara [AIR 1940 PC 116, 121
: 44 CWN 957 : 67 IA 251] ). If that is the position in
law, there can be no reason to hold that a mosque has a
unique or special status, higher than that of the places of
worship of other religions in secular India to make it
immune from acquisition by exercise of the sovereign or
prerogative power of the State. A mosque is not an
essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and
namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in
open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the
provisions in the Constitution of India. Irrespective of
the status of a mosque in an Islamic country for the
purpose of immunity from acquisition by the State in
exercise of the sovereign power, its status and immunity
from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the

30
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
Constitution is the same and equal to that of the places of
worship of the other religions, namely, church, temple etc.
It is neither more nor less than that of the places of
worship of the other religions. Obviously, the acquisition
of any religious place is to be made only in unusual and
extraordinary situations for a larger national purpose
keeping in view that such acquisition should not result in
extinction of the right to practise the religion, if the
significance of that place be such. Subject to this
condition, the power of acquisition is available for a
mosque like any other place of worship of any religion. The
right to worship is not at any and every place, so long as
it can be practised effectively, unless the right to
worship at a particular place is itself an integral part of
that right.
(emphasis by Court)
46. In Yusuf Ajij Shaikh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
15
No. 2, Pune and others , dealing with the issue that we have under
consideration, it has been remarked by P.S. Patankar, J. :
8. The new question now raised is whether this acquisition
can be dropped in view of the enactment i.e. The Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (hereafter referred
to as the Places of Worship Act). The learned Advocate for
the Appellants drew my attention to the Preamble of the
said Act which says that this is an Act to prohibit
conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the
maintenance of the religious character of any place of
worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947. This
is also to be found in section 4(1).
Section 2(b) defines ‘conversion’ which is as follows:—
“2(b) “conversion” with its grammatical variations,
includes alteration or change of whatever nature;”
Section 3 is a charging section. It says that “No person
shall convert any place of worship of any religious
15 (1995) 1 Mah LJ 483 : 1994 SCC OnLine Bom 246

31
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship
of a different section of the same religious denomination
or of a different religious denomination or any section
thereof”. The learned Advocate for Respondents submits that
this enactment has no application as far as the acquisition
of land under the Land Acquisition Act is concerned. The
ban is on persons to convert, alter or change from one
section etc. to another. This has been done with a view
that persons of one community or section do not trespass
and usurp the land or religious place of some other
religious community or section and convert it into their
place of worship. This has been done with a view to
maintain communal harmony in the country. He submits that
this is also clear from section 6 which provides for
punishment for contravention of section 3. Section 6(1)
provides for punishment to person who contravenes section 3
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to pay fine. Section 6(2)
and section 6(3) provide for attempt and abetment in that
respect. The submission made on behalf of respondents
deserves to be accepted. In this case land is sought to be
acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
No provision of the Places of Worship Act bans such
acquisition expressly or impliedly. The provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act are not abrogated. It is very, clear
that this Act has been enacted for the limited purpose to
prohibit and punish one section or community who illegally
takes over the land of religious worship of another
community or section and changes its character. It is not
possible to accept the submission that acquisition of land
under the Land Acquisition Act loses its character and
therefore prohibited. Under this Act, conversion
contemplated by section 3 is by persons of the place of
worship of one community or section to religious place of
worship of some other community or section. It is not mere
conversion as defined. This legislative intent is clearly
discernible and done with a view to see that communal
harmony is not disturbed by such acts of one community or
section or denomination. The injunction under section 4(1)
is for the people of all communities to see that the
religious character of a place of worship existing on the
15th day of August, 1947 is maintained and continued and

32
WRIC No. 16649 of 2026
there is no conversion. This cannot cover in its sweep the
acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. It is
not merely because there is a loss of Dargah or the Mosque
this would amount to conversion in view of section 3. This
is also clear from section 6 which prescribes punishment to
those persons who indulge in such conversion. Hence I
reject this contention.
47. We were not inclined to go into this issue, because the petitioners’
rights are very limited and the cause of action, which they essentially
canvass, would not logically involve the issue about the six ancient
mosques being acquired for any public purpose. But, since the petitioners
have canvassed that point much vociferously, we have dealt with it in
commensurate measure, without prejudice to the rights of the State, the
Waqf Board and the Mutawalli of mosques concerned to suit their rights
in appropriate proceedings, if and when the occasion arises. So far as the
petitioners are concerned, we are of opinion that they have no right to any
of the reliefs that they seek.
48. In the result, this petition fails and stands dismissed.
49. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ARUN KUMAR, J.) (J.J. MUNIR, J.)
Allahabad
July 02, 2026
I. Batabyal
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad