The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recent decision to uphold the demolition of the Takiya Masjid in Ujjain.
The plea filed by thirteen residents, who used to offer namaz at the mosque, alleged the Madhya Pradesh government demolished the 200-year-old mosque to extend the parking area for the adjoining Mahakal Temple.
However, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the demolition and acquisition was done as per law and compensation was also paid for the same.
"It is required under statutory scheme… compensation paid," the Court said.
It also noted that a petition before the High Court was earlier withdrawn by the petitioners.
"You filed a writ petition challenging the same… requisition, which was dismissed as withdrawn," the Court observed.
Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, said that the High Court reasoning was bad in law.
"But the way it has been done. This requires consideration. The reasoning in the impugned order is that he may offer prayer even in house or elsewhere. This is the reasoning," Shamshad contended.
"The High Court has made a very good reasoning that the petition was dismissed and withdrawn, compensation was paid," the Court said.
"Compensation was given to unauthorised persons," Shamshad said.
"You have remedy under the Act for that," the Court reminded.
"This is gross case. Because you need parking for some other religious place you demolish the mosque and say you don’t have a right?" Shamshad persisted.
However, the Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
As per the petitioner, the mosque was duly notified as a waqf in 1985 and had been in use for the last 200 years as a live Mosque till January this year, when it was "illegally and arbitrarily demolished.”
Thus, the the demolition violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Waqf Act, 1995 (now Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995), and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The plea goes on to claim that the land acquisition process carried out by the State prior to the demolition is marred by irregularities.
Further, the petitioners have alleged that the State granted compensation for the acquisition to unauthorised occupants and encroachers in the area "just to make out a false case of acquisition."
The petitioners had earlier approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter with a plea to restore the mosque.
However, the plea was dismissed by a single-judge and later a Division Bench of the High Court.
They then filed the present plea before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. As interim relief, they urged the Supreme Court to stay the High Court's rulings, to restrain the State from altering or constructing upon the site, and to direct an independent inquiry into the demolition.
The plea was filed through advocate Vaibhav Choudhary and drawn by Choudhary and advocate Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi.
The petition was settled by Senior Advocate MR Shamshad.