Allahabad High Court Refuses to Intervene in Sambhal Mosque Demolition Row

Justice Dinesh Pathak, while hearing the plea filed by Masjid Shareef Gosulbara Ravan Bujurg and Another, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn after the petitioners themselves sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

Court also clarified that any request for interim protection could be made before the Collector, who will be the competent appellate authority, who must decide such an application independently and in accordance with law.

The petitioners, represented by advocates Aravind Kumar Tripathi and Shashank Shri Tripathi, had moved the High Court challenging a September 2, 2025 order passed by the Assistant Collector (Tehsildar), Sambhal, under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The order reportedly directed action against structures allegedly built on government land at village Rayan Buzurg, including a mosque known as Masjid Shareef and an attached hospital.

In their plea, the petitioners sought to quash the revenue proceedings and notices issued on June 26, 2025, and September 30, 2025, contending that the authorities were acting in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s binding directions dated November 13, 2024, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (2024 INSC 866). The top court, in that judgment, had mandated that no demolition or eviction could take place without proper notice, hearing, and adherence to due process.

The petitioners also requested that the state authorities be restrained from demolishing or interfering with the mosque and hospital premises and further sought contempt proceedings against the officials allegedly responsible for ignoring the Supreme Court’s directions.

Since the High Court was on vacation between September 29 and October 3, 2025, the matter was urgently listed before a special bench constituted by order of the Chief Justice on October 3. During that hearing, the petitioners’ counsel initially claimed that the impugned order had not been served upon them. However, the Chief Standing Counsel, J.N. Maurya, produced a copy of the order passed by the Tehsildar and pointed out that the petitioners had in fact participated in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code.

Justice Pathak then allowed the petitioners twelve hours to place the order on record through an affidavit and to file a fresh vakalatnama signed by the petitioners. The case was listed for the following day.

When the matter came up on October 4, the petitioners submitted a supplementary affidavit along with a copy of the Tehsildar’s order and formally sought permission to withdraw their writ petition to file an appeal before the Collector as provided under Section 67(5) of the Revenue Code. The state’s counsel raised no objection to this request.

Accepting the petitioners’ prayer, court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, leaving it open for them to seek appropriate relief before the appellate forum. However, the judge declined to grant any interim protection at this stage, observing that the petitioners could move the appellate authority for such relief, which should consider and decide it on its own merits without being influenced by the High Court’s order.

Case Title: Masjid Shareef Gosulbara Ravan Bujurg And Another vs State of UP and 5 Others

Order Date: October 4, 2025

Bench: Justice Dinesh Pathak