Varanasi Dalmandi Demolition: Allahabad High Court Says Tenants Can't Challenge; PoW Act Doesn't Bar Mosque Acquisition

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by six shopkeepers of Varanasi's Dalmandi Market challenging the proposed road widening and beautification project linked to the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor, holding that tenants cannot question acquisition proceedings merely because they have been carrying on business from the premises for decades.

Court also held that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, does not prohibit the State from acquiring religious property for a secular and public purpose, like development of a road or augmentation of infrastructure or any similar activity.    

The petition alleged that authorities were threatening to forcibly evict the petitioner shopkeepers without following due process while implementing the road widening project. They also claimed that six pre-Independence mosques in the locality were proposed to be acquired or demolished as part of the project. The petitioners sought directions protecting both their shops and the mosques.

Also Read| Supreme Court Assures Listing Plea To Withdraw Stay On New Suits Under Places Of Worship Act

A division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar passed the judgment after hearing Advocate Quazi Mohammad Akaram for the petitioners, Additional Advocate General Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, assisted by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Suresh Singh, for the State, Advocate Vineet Sankalp for the Varanasi Nagar Nigam and Advocate Ravi Prakash Pandey for the Varanasi Development Authority.

What Court Said About Dalmandi Tenants' Rights

The high court observed that the petitioners had "mixed up their rights," some of which they possessed and others they did not.

The bench noted that the petitioners had themselves admitted they were tenants and had relied on rent agreements, rent receipts and electricity bills to establish their possession. Merely because they or their ancestors had been conducting business from the shops for generations did not enlarge their rights into ownership, court held.

"It is not that since their shops are running for a long time, when their ancestors were doing the same business, that their rights have been enlarged to some kind of a proprietorship," court observed.

Court further pointed out that none of the owners or landlords of the properties had approached it to challenge the road widening project.

Also Read| BREAKING: [Places of Worship Act] No new suits to be registered: Supreme Court to Trial Courts

"When it comes to acquisition of property under the Act of 2013, it is largely the title holder who has locus to object, negotiate a sale or suffer an acquisition. The tenant hardly has any rights," the bench observed, adding that once property vests in the State through acquisition, it vests free from encumbrances.

The judges also noted that although the petitioners had alleged threats of demolition, they had not challenged any specific notice issued either by the Nagar Nigam under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act or by the Varanasi Development Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act. Therefore, the relief sought against those authorities was "besides the point".

Does the Places of Worship Act prohibit acquisition of mosques?

The petitioners had argued that six mosques situated in Dalmandi were constructed before August 15, 1947 and therefore enjoyed protection under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. They contended that acquisition of the mosques would violate both the 1991 Act and the Waqf Act, 1995.

The high court, however, rejected the contention.

It first observed that the petitioners had improperly combined their tenancy dispute with an attempt to protect waqf properties. Since the mosques were registered waqf properties, the Mutawallis and the Waqf Board had the primary locus to protect them. Deciding the issue at the instance of these petitioners, court said, could prejudice the rights of those authorities.

Examining the Places of Worship Act, the bench held that its object is to prohibit conversion of the religious character of places of worship and preserve the status that existed on August 15, 1947. It does not prohibit acquisition of religious land for a legitimate public purpose.

Also Read| Challenge to Places of Worship Act, 1991: Supreme Court's three-judge bench to hear plea in July

Court held that acquisition of land is distinct from conversion of a place of worship.

Quoting the Bombay High Court's decision in Yusuf Ajij Shaikh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2, Pune and others (1995), the bench observed, "It is not merely because there is a loss of Dargah or the Mosque this would amount to conversion".

Court also referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1994) that a mosque stands on the same constitutional footing as other places of worship and may be acquired for a larger public purpose, provided such acquisition does not extinguish the right to practise the religion itself.

Holding that the petitioners had no enforceable right to seek the reliefs claimed, the high court dismissed the writ petition. At the same time, it clarified that its findings would not prejudice the rights of the State, the Waqf Board or the concerned Mutawallis to pursue appropriate proceedings, if required, in the future.

Case Title: Syed Rashid Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Order Date: July 2, 2026

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar