Allahabad High Court’s Decision on PIL Against Mosque Notice
The Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a show-cause notice regarding a mosque constructed on land designated as a ‘qabristan’ (graveyard) in Sambhal. The case, titled Afsaar v State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others, was presided over by Justice Alok Mathur, who found no basis for judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Mathur clarified that the petitioner, Afsaar, has the opportunity to present his defense before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar of Sambhal in response to the notice issued under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code. The court stated, “Subject to aforesaid observations, present writ petition is dismissed,” on August 6.
Details of the Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner, Afsaar, argued that the mosque exists on land recorded as ‘qabristan’ in the revenue records, and the notice demanded justification for why he should not be evicted from what was deemed an illegal encroachment on Gaon Sabha land. Additionally, the notice suggested the imposition of penalties for this unauthorized occupation.
Despite these arguments, the court noted that Afsaar does not appear to be in possession of the mosque. The judgment observed, “The only case made out by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice is the fact that ‘Mosque’ is existing on the land which is shown as ‘Qabristan’. From the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is a follower of the Muslim faith and offers prayer in the said Mosque, but clearly, he is not the person who has either constructed the Mosque or claims occupation of the said Mosque.”
State’s Position and Court’s Conclusion
The State’s counsel argued that Afsaar could present his objections before the Tehsildar, who would then make an informed decision. Considering these submissions, the court saw no reason to intervene in the matter, asserting that the notice was neither unlawful nor arbitrary.
More Read
Justice Mathur concluded, “Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Advocate Ayub Khan represented the petitioner in this case.
