The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not prevent the State from acquiring religious properties for secular public purposes. Dismissing a plea against Varanasi’s Dalmandi redevelopment, the Court upheld the government’s authority to undertake lawful public infrastructure projects.
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, does not prohibit the State from acquiring land or buildings associated with religious places when such acquisition is undertaken for a secular public purpose. The Court observed that while the legislation protects the religious character of places of worship from being altered from one faith to another, it does not curtail the government’s sovereign power to acquire such properties in accordance with law.
The significant ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the ongoing road widening and beautification works in Varanasi’s Dalmandi area. The infrastructure project forms part of the broader expansion associated with the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor, one of the flagship redevelopment initiatives undertaken around the historic Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
In its 32-page judgment, the Bench explained the scope of the 1991 legislation and held that the statute was enacted to preserve the religious identity of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, by preventing their conversion from one religious denomination to another. However, the Court stressed that the Act cannot be interpreted as restricting the government’s power of compulsory acquisition for legitimate public purposes.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Places of Worship Act on February 17
Referring to the object of the legislation, the Bench observed:
“It does not derogate from the state’s authority to acquire any place of religious worship for secular and public purposes.”
Background of the Dispute And Arguments
The case arose from a petition filed by six residents of the Dalmandi locality, including shopkeepers, who sought judicial intervention against the ongoing acquisition and demolition process being carried out for the proposed road expansion.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities from dispossessing them from their premises. They also requested protection for six centuries-old mosques situated in the locality, contending that the structures faced demolition as part of the proposed extension of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor project.
Petitioners Contentions: According to the petitioners, the proposed acquisition was arbitrary, illegal and violative of their constitutional rights. They argued that the exercise disproportionately affected members of a particular community and alleged that the project was being implemented with discriminatory intent.
The petition further contended that the demolition of the religious structures would violate the safeguards provided under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship.
Contentions of the State: The State government opposed the petition and argued that the challenge was legally untenable. It submitted that the Places of Worship Act merely prohibits changing the religious character of a place of worship from one religion to another and does not create immunity against acquisition undertaken for public purposes.
The State further relied upon the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, contending that the government possesses sovereign authority to acquire private property for projects undertaken in public interest, subject to payment of compensation and compliance with statutory safeguards.
Additionally, the State referred to Sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995, arguing that even waqf properties are not absolutely exempt from acquisition, provided the prescribed legal procedure is followed.
According to the State, the ongoing project was a public infrastructure initiative intended to improve accessibility, traffic movement and civic amenities around one of the country’s most significant pilgrimage centres.
Analysis of the Court
While examining the issue, the High Court undertook an interpretation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Bench observed that the primary purpose of the legislation is to preserve communal harmony by maintaining the religious character of places of worship as they stood on the date of India’s Independence. The law prevents the conversion of a place of worship belonging to one religious denomination into that of another denomination.
However, the Court clarified that the Act does not curtail the State’s constitutional or statutory powers relating to land acquisition undertaken for secular objectives.
The judges held that acquisition of land for roads, public infrastructure or other developmental purposes cannot automatically be equated with conversion of the religious character of a place of worship. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the 1991 Act does not prohibit the government from acquiring religious properties where the acquisition is otherwise lawful and undertaken for a genuine public purpose.
Another important aspect considered by the High Court was the legal standing of the petitioners. The Bench noted that the petitioners were tenants and occupants, rather than owners or title holders of the properties proposed to be acquired.
Under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the Court observed, it is primarily the owner or person having legal title over the property who possesses the right to object to the acquisition, negotiate compensation or challenge the acquisition proceedings on permissible legal grounds.
Since the petitioners were merely tenants, the Court held that their locus to question the acquisition process itself was significantly limited.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court declined to interfere with the ongoing acquisition and redevelopment project. The Court upheld the State’s contention that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, cannot be interpreted to prohibit land acquisition for legitimate secular purposes merely because the property includes or is associated with a place of worship.
The ruling clarifies the distinction between preserving the religious character of a place of worship—a protection guaranteed under the 1991 Act and the State’s sovereign power to acquire land for public projects under applicable land acquisition laws, provided the acquisition follows due process and statutory safeguards.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE