MP High Court Upholds Removal Of Ujjain Shahi Masjid Portion For Road Widening [Read Order]

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, has dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging the Ujjain Municipal Corporation's notices for demolishing a portion of the Shahi Masjid at Chatri Chowk, Ujjain, to widen an adjoining road, holding that the action did not violate the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 25, 26, or 300A of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt was hearing Writ Petition No. 37147 of 2026, filed by the Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan through its authorised representative Ashfaq Ahmad, and the connected Writ Petition No. 37128 of 2026, filed by the Shahi Masjid Waqf Panch Mochiyan through its President Arshan Hussain, both challenging notices dated 14.08.2026, 25.08.2026 and 27.08.2026, and a final notice/order dated 01.09.2026, issued by the Municipal Corporation for demolishing a portion of the mosque as part of a 15-metre road-widening project.

The petitioners contended that the mosque was an ancient, registered Waqf property, and that the proposed demolition would tear down a portion of its prayer hall (Jamat Khana), a 120-foot minaret, and the Mazhar Chouk Shahi, in violation of their fundamental rights to practice and manage their religion under Articles 25 and 26. It was further argued that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedure under Sections 322 or 323 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for demolition, that no notice had been issued to the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board as required under the Waqf Act, 1995, and that alternative land, including a nearby garden and vacant property opposite the mosque, could have been used for the road-widening instead.

The Municipal Corporation, supported by the State, submitted that the road in question was a prominent route connecting Gopal Mandir to the Mahakal Mandir and the banks of the River Kshipra, used by lakhs of devotees during festivals and requiring widening in view of the upcoming Simhastha Kumbh, 2028. It was submitted that notice under Section 305 of the Act, which provides for automatic vesting of land projecting beyond the regular line of a public street, was sufficient, that several replies had in fact been filed by rival claimants to the mosque's management, that only the obstructing portion, amounting to less than 10% of the total construction, was being removed, and that FAR or TDR compensation had been offered. The Corporation also pointed out that about 80 religious structures were being removed across Ujjain for the project, including 11 already removed on the very road in question, comprising 10 temples and a mosque, to demonstrate that no discriminatory treatment was being meted out to the petitioners.

The Court examined the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Manoj Tiberwal Akash for demolitions undertaken in the course of road-widening projects, as well as the Allahabad High Court's holding in Mohammad Ali Khan v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer that the right to freely practise religion under Article 25 is a personal right not tied to a particular place, and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Gulam Kadar Ahmadbhai Menon and Others v. Surat Municipal Corporation and Others, which had upheld the removal of a mosque's minaret for road-widening on the ground that it was not integral to prayer and that public interest in the widened road overrode the need to preserve it. Reliance was also placed on Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation on the binding nature of a development plan and the automatic vesting of land under Section 305 of the Act.

Finding that a hearing had in fact been afforded to the office-bearers of the petitioner before the impugned order was passed, and that the action was part of a city-wide, even-handed exercise affecting both temples and mosques, the Court held that “it cannot be said that the respondent authority is taking any action in an unfair and biased manner which violates Articles 14, 25, 26, or 300-A.”

The Court also rejected the contention that an alternative route could have been carved out using nearby garden or vacant land, holding that this was not found to be a genuine or workable alternative on the facts, and declined to go into the disputed question of the petitioners' locus standi given the larger public interest involved. Observing that the Corporation had followed due process and had acted with reference to the upcoming Simhastha Kumbh, 2028 and the safety needs of the large number of devotees using the road, the Court held that both petitions were meritless and accordingly dismissed them.

Appearances:

For the Petitioners (W.P. No. 37147 of 2026): Shri Jagdish Baheti, Shri Aaditya Dubey and Shri Prabuddha Singh, Advocates.

For the Petitioner (W.P. No. 37128 of 2026): Shri Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi, Advocate (through VC).

For the Respondent/State: Mr. Sonal Gupta, Advocate, along with Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondent/Municipal Corporation: Shri Rishi Tiwari, Advocate.

Case Title: Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan through its Authorised Representative Ashfaq Ahmad and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 37147 of 2026, with connected Writ Petition No. 37128 of 2026, Shahi Masjid Waqf Panch Mochiyan through its President Arshan Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation No. 2026:MPHC-IND:25197).

[Read Order]