Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking reliefs with respect to Ujjain's Takiya Masjid, which was demolished by Madhya Pradesh authorities after acquiring the Masjid land and awarding compensation.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, while dealing with the petitioners' challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which rejected a similar plea noting that right to practice religion has no nexus with a particular place and this right is not infringed by acquisition of a land having a mosque.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad appeared for the petitioners and submitted that the Masjid was 200 years old and it was demolished to expand parking for another religious place (the Mahakal Temple). The bench however noted that a plea challenging acquisition of the Masjid land was dismissed as 'withdrawn'.

"Too late now, nothing can be done", said Justice Nath.

Subsequently, Shamshad pointed out from the impugned order a finding that the petitioners may offer prayer in another mosque, their house or elsewhere. "This is the reasoning," he emphasized. The bench however opined that the High Court made "a very good reasoning" that an earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn and compensation paid.

Disputing the compensation finding, Shamshad said, "compensation was given to unauthorized persons". The bench however stated that remedy in that case is available under law.

To recap, the petitioners, who used to offer namaz at the Takiya Masjid, moved the High Court on discovering that the State had initiated land acquisition proceedings to expand the parking space of Mahakal Lok Parishar. It was later discovered that the government acquired the Masjid land and demolished the structure, after passing an award of compensation.

The petitioners prayed before a single judge that directions be issued for the reconstruction of the masjid and to initiate an inquiry against the government officials responsible, which was dismissed.

The single judge dismissed the petition, observing that the acquisition proceedings had attained finality and that the Waqf Board had filed a civil suit against the State claiming the right to receive compensation.

In intra-court appeal, the State claimed that various petitions were filed by acutely affected persons claiming to be in occupation and possession of the land, which were dismissed by the writ court. It was contended that the disputed land was acquired after due process of law.

In October, a Division Bench also dismissed the petitioner's plea. It referred to Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohammad Ali Khan v. Special Land Acquisition Office (1978) which had held that "profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed in Article 25 is a personal right which has to be exercised by the individual. It has no nexus with the place or territory where it has to be exercised".

Case Title: MOHAMMED TAIYAB AND ORS. Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 31842/2025