The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, protects the religious character of places of worship but does not prevent the government from acquiring such properties for genuine public purposes like road widening or infrastructure development.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar while dismissing a petition filed by six Muslim shopkeepers from Varanasi’s Dalmandi area. The petition challenged a proposed road-widening project connected to the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor.
The petitioners argued that the project would demolish their shops, which they said were their only source of income. They also asked the court to stop the Uttar Pradesh government from acquiring six mosques in the area, claiming the mosques had existed before August 15, 1947. They argued that acquiring these religious structures would violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The mosques mentioned in the petition included Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran, and Masjid Sangamarmar.
Rejecting their argument, the court said the 1991 Act was enacted to preserve the religious identity of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and to prevent their conversion from one religion to another. It clarified that the law does not take away the government’s authority to acquire land for a legitimate public purpose.
“The Act of 1991 prohibits the conversion of a 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,” the bench observed.
The High Court also referred to Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, noting that Waqf properties can be acquired for a public purpose, provided the required legal safeguards, including consultation with the Waqf Board, are followed.
The bench further described the petitioners’ claim that the demolition targeted a particular community as “odd.” It also held that since the petitioners were tenants and not mutawallis or custodians of the mosques, they did not have the legal standing to seek protection of the religious structures on behalf of the mosque authorities.
However, the court said it examined the legal issue because the petitioners had strongly argued that the Places of Worship Act provided complete protection against any acquisition of religious sites.
The High Court clarified that its observations in the case would not affect the rights of the Uttar Pradesh government, the Waqf Board, or the mutawallis of the mosques to pursue any legal remedies available to them in future proceedings.
