MP High Court Upholds Demolition Of Portion Of Ujjain Shahi Masjid For Road Widening

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench has dismissed two writ petitions against the Ujjain Municipal Corporation's demolition notices for a portion of the Shahi Masjid at Chatri Chowk, holding the road-widening exercise was carried out in larger public interest and did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while hearing writ petition filed by Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan through its authorised representative Ashfaq Ahmad, along with the connected writ petition filed by Shahi Masjid Waqf Panch Mochiyan through its President Arshan Hussain, ruled that "no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The petitions arose from notices dated August 14, 25 and 27, and a final order dated September 1, 2026, issued by the Corporation to demolish a portion of the mosque for a 15-metre road under the Ujjain Development Plan, 2035. The petitioners contended the action would tear down part of the prayer hall or Jamat Khana, a 120-foot minaret, and the Mazhar Chouk Shahi, violating Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Appearing for the petitioners in WP-37147-2026, advocates Jagdish Baheti, Aaditya Dubey and Prabuddha Singh argued that the mosque, registered as Waqf property, was constitutionally protected under Article 25, and that neighbouring properties had been spared demolition on grounds of historical significance while the mosque was not.

They relied on the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Gulam Kadar Ahmadbhai Menon v. Surat Municipal Corporation and the Supreme Court's directions in In Re Manoj Tiberwal Akash on procedural safeguards before removing encroachments, and contended that no notice had been served on the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board. Advocate Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi, appearing through video conference for the petitioner in WP-37128-2026, adopted these submissions.

Advocate Rishi Tiwari, appearing for the Municipal Corporation, raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, pointing to a dispute over who currently heads the mosque committee following its reconstitution by the Waqf Board on August 19, 2026.

He submitted that the road, connecting Gopal Mandir to the Mahakaleshwar Temple and used during Shahi Sawari processions, was being widened keeping in mind anticipated crowds during Simhastha 2028, and that about 80 religious structures were being removed or shifted across Ujjain for the project, with 11 structures: ten temples and one mosque, already removed on the same stretch.

He argued that only the obstructing portion of the mosque would be taken down, less than 10 percent of the total construction, with FAR or TDR offered as compensation. Advocate Sonal Gupta, with Shrey Raj Saxena, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the State and supported this stand.

The Court examined the Supreme Court's caution in Manoj Tiberwal Akash that "justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence," alongside rulings on Article 25 holding that the right to practise religion "has no nexus with any particular place" and cannot be deemed infringed by acquisition of land on which a mosque stands. It also relied on precedent affirming that vesting of land under Section 305 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act is automatic once a road line is fixed, and that public interest in road-widening can override preservation of a structure not essential to worship itself.

Noting that an opportunity of hearing had been granted before the final order, and that religious structures across the city were being treated uniformly, the Court held the Corporation's action was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It rejected the plea for an alternative alignment through nearby garden or vacant land as "not found to be genuine," observing that the petitioners appeared to be resisting the process "under the pretext of giving special treatment to the religious place."

The Court further noted that conflicting replies had been filed on behalf of the mosque committee by individuals separately claiming to be its President, and that this disputed question of locus standi weighed against exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. Both petitions were accordingly dismissed as meritless.

Case Title: Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 9, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt