Worship Place Can Be Acquired For Public Purpose State Has Sovereign Power High Court

While ruling that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits only the ‘conversion’ of the religious character of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another but does not bar the state from acquiring such properties for secular and public purposes, the Allahabad high court dismissed a writ petition seeking to halt the widening and beautification of the Dalmandi area in Varanasi, a project undertaken as a part of the Uttar Pradesh government’s Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham corridor development.The six petitioners, who are tenants and shopkeepers operating in the Dalmandi area, had moved the high court seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent their dispossession from the area. They also sought protection for six ancient mosques in the area that were proposed for takeover and demolition as part of the project.Dismissing the writ petition filed by Syed Rashid Ali and others, a division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar observed: “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.”The Dalmandi area is located around 800 meters from the main Kashi Vishwanath Temple. The six ancient mosques proposed for demolition by the administration are - Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran and Masjid Sangamarmar.What petitioners saidThe petitioners submitted 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 well as their right to worship, by demolishing the six ancient mosques located in the area.The state, on the other hand, argued that the 1991 Act does not prohibit the government from acquiring worship land for larger public purposes. It was submitted that under the land acquisition Act of 2013 (RFCTLARR) the government has the sovereign power to acquire any property, including religious property, for a public purpose, such as building roads, highways or public infrastructure. The state also argued that sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995, also permit such acquisition, subject to due process.In its judgment dated July 2, the court observed that the petitioners, being mere tenants and not owners of the properties in question, had limited standing to challenge the acquisition process.“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,” it noted. The court further noted that the title holders had not come forward to challenge the project, emphasizing that in matters of land acquisition under the 2013 Act, it is primarily the title holder who has locus to object, negotiate a sale or suffer an acquisition.On the argument regarding the violation of the 1991 Act if the mosques are acquired by the state, the bench referred to Sections 3 & 4 of the Act and harmoniously construed them. It noted that the Act intends to prohibit the conversion of a place of worship (church, temple, mosque) from one religious denomination to another, preserving the status quo as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947. The bench clarified that it was never intended to act as a shield against the State’s sovereign right to acquire land for public welfare, such as building roads or essential infrastructure.“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,” the court remarked.