SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday, June 3, held that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, protects the religious character of places of worship but does not bar the state from acquiring such properties for a genuine public purpose, such as road widening or infrastructure development.
A division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by six Muslim shopkeepers from Varanasi’s Dalmandi area, who had challenged a proposed road widening project linked to the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor.
Mosques predate 1947
The petitioners had contended that the project would lead to the demolition of their shops, which they said were their only source of livelihood. They had also sought a direction restraining the state from acquiring six mosques in the area — Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran and Masjid Sangamarmar — claiming these structures existed before August 15, 1947, and that their acquisition would violate the 1991 law.
Rejecting the argument, the court held that the 1991 Act was enacted to preserve the religious identity of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, by preventing their conversion from one religion to another, and that it did not restrict the state’s power to acquire land for a legitimate public purpose.
“…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 bench observed.
The court also referred to Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, which allows acquisition of Waqf properties for a public purpose, subject to consultation with the Waqf Board and other statutory safeguards.
Petitioners’ claim targeted action
The bench termed as “odd” the petitioners’ claim that the demolition was targeted at a particular community, and went on to hold that the petitioners, being tenants and not mutawallis or custodians of the mosques, did not have the locus standi to seek protection of the religious structures on their behalf.
The court, however, noted that it had chosen to examine the legal question since the petitioners had strongly argued that the Places of Worship Act operated as an “all-time shield” against acquisition.
Clarifying the scope of its ruling, the bench said its observations would not affect the rights of the state, the Waqf Board or the mutawallis of the mosques to pursue appropriate remedies in future proceedings.
SOURCE : SIASAT
