LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 prohibits only the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship from one religious denomination to another, and that it does not bar the state from acquiring such properties for secular and public purposes.
Giving the ruling, a division bench comprising Justices JJ Munir and Arun Kumar dismissed a writ petition seeking to issue directives to halt the ongoing widening of roads and beautification in the Dalmandi area in Varanasi, a project being undertaken as an extension of the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor development.
Passing a 32-page order, the bench said that the Act of 1991 prohibited the conversion of places of worship of one religious denomination to another. “It does not derogate from the state’s authority to acquire any place of religious worship for secular and public purposes,” said the judges.
Significantly, six petitioners, comprising shopkeepers of the Dalmandi area, had moved the Allahabad HC 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 demolition as part of the project.
The petitioners argued that the proposed acquisition for the expansion of the project route was arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of their fundamental rights and that it was designed to target a particular community.
On the other hand, the state argued that the 1991 Act did not prohibit the government from acquiring worship land for larger public purposes. It submitted that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, the government had the sovereign power to acquire any property. The state also argued that Sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1955, also permitted such acquisition, subject to due process.
On the basis of the arguments, the bench observed that the petitioners, being mere tenants and not owners of the properties in question, had limited standing to challenge the acquisition process.
The high court further emphasised 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.
