Rajasthan High Court dismisses pleas against notices to border-area mosques, madrasas and dargahs; directs committees with BSF representatives to assess action on security grounds

The judgment concerned a batch of writ petitions challenging eviction, vacation and show-cause notices issued to persons and institutions managing Dargahs, Masjids, Madrasas and other structures situated within approximately 0–50 kilometres of the Indo–Pakistan border in Rajasthan.

The notices were issued under provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and local Gram Panchayat laws, alleging unauthorized occupation or construction on Government/agricultural land, absence of requisite permissions, and land use without lawful conversion.

The petitioners alleged that the proceedings were predetermined, that proper notice and hearing had not been provided, and that the respondents intended to demolish the structures in disregard of the Supreme Court’s directions concerning demolition of structures.

The Court treated S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026 as the lead matter and applied its decision mutatis mutandis to the connected petitions.

1. Whether writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were maintainable against show-cause notices issued under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and related laws, particularly when statutory remedies and appellate mechanisms were available.

2. Whether the notices and proposed proceedings were vitiated by violation of natural justice, including inadequate service, insufficient time, denial of personal hearing, or failure to disclose material relied upon by the authorities.

3. Whether the petitioners had established the necessary locus standi, authority, identity, title, possession or lawful connection with the concerned religious institutions and properties.

4. Whether the alleged absence of permission under Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954, and the alleged unauthorized occupation or change of land use justified continuation of the statutory proceedings.

5. Whether national-security considerations relating to properties situated within the border belt justified a calibrated application of natural justice and regulatory action by the authorities.

The Court applied Sections 90-A and 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and Sections 14, 15 and 22–24 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, which provide mechanisms for dealing with unauthorized occupation, unlawful land use and encroachments, together with appellate remedies before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954 require prior permission of the Collector for the use of public places for religious purposes and for construction or conversion into a public religious building.

The Court relied on Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327, for the principle that writ jurisdiction ordinarily should not be invoked against a mere show-cause notice where the affected party can respond before the competent authority.

Relying on Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 13 SCC 401, the Court held that natural justice is not wholly excluded in national-security matters but may be tailored where cogent material establishes a bona fide security concern and disclosure may prejudice national security.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s demolition-related directions in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1, but distinguished them on the basis that the present matters involved show-cause notices, alleged unauthorized constructions and border-security considerations.

The Court found that the petitions raised disputed factual questions concerning title, ownership, possession, authorization, land use and the petitioners’ connection with the concerned institutions, which could not appropriately be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The notices were treated as preliminary proceedings requiring the petitioners to appear, explain their position and produce supporting documents; they did not themselves direct demolition, and no coercive action had yet been taken.

Since the petitioners had either failed to participate in or had not adequately pursued the proceedings before the competent authorities, the Court held that they could not bypass the statutory process by invoking Article 226.

The Court further held that the alleged absence of Collector’s permission under Sections 5 and 6 of the Religious Buildings and Places Act, coupled with the allegations of unauthorized occupation and unlawful construction, prima facie justified administrative scrutiny.

Although the Court accepted that national security could not be invoked without supporting material, it accorded deference to the executive’s assessment of security concerns in the sensitive border area and held that disclosure of intelligence inputs was not necessarily required in open proceedings.

In its view, the issuance of notices and provision of an opportunity to appear constituted substantial compliance with natural justice, particularly because the petitioners had not utilised that opportunity.

It held that the petitioners should pursue the statutory proceedings and appellate remedies available under the relevant revenue and colonization laws, and that the notices did not establish any immediate or substantiated threat of demolition.

The Court nevertheless directed the constitution of district-level committees including the District Collector, Superintendent of Police and a BSF representative to examine individual cases on the basis of available evidence, intelligence inputs and other relevant material.

The Court directed that a committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police and a representative of the BSF examine each sensitive property individually and take an appropriate, reasoned decision, including possible eviction, dispossession or demolition where warranted by the material and applicable law.

No order as to costs was made, and pending applications and stay applications were disposed of.