- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohd. Sharif Saifi v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner sought permission to construct a mosque on a specific land parcel located in village Kuri, Tehsil Thakurdwara, district Moradabad. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 4, the S.H.O. of P.S Dilari, Moradabad district, restrained him from building the mosque until permission was obtained from the District Magistrate. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that there was a dispute over the title of the land, with a suit pending before the Civil Judge, Thakurdwara. The court chose not to adjudicate the ownership dispute, noting that it was within the jurisdiction of the Civil/Revenue Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled under the Constitution to build a house of worship on the land in question without obtaining permission from the District Magistrate.
- The extent of protection afforded by the authorities to the petitioner in exercising this right.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner wished to construct a mosque on the land in question.
- The petitioner alleged that he was restrained by the S.H.O. from building the mosque without permission from the District Magistrate.
Respondent No. 4's Arguments
- The respondent contended that there was a controversy regarding the title of the land.
- A suit concerning the ownership of the land was pending before the Civil Judge, Thakurdwara.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court refrained from resolving the factual dispute regarding ownership, as it lies within the jurisdiction of the Civil/Revenue Court. Instead, the court focused on the constitutional right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The court emphasized that any person is entitled to build a house of worship on their own land or on another's land with consent, without requiring permission from the District Magistrate. The authorities are obliged to protect this right and act against any interference. Additionally, the court offered a non-binding suggestion encouraging the promotion of educational and scientific institutions over religious structures, referencing Article 51-A(h) which imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to develop scientific temper. However, this suggestion does not affect the petitioner's constitutional rights.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
The court held that the petitioner is fully entitled to construct a mosque on his own land or on another's land with that person's consent without requiring permission from the District Magistrate. Authorities must provide full protection to the petitioner in exercising this right and take strong action against any interference. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the petitioner's constitutional rights and dismissing the requirement of administrative permission, but it does not establish any new legal precedent beyond this clarification.
M. Katju and S.L Saraf, JJ.:— Heard the petitioner in person and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has prayed in this petition that he wants to make a mosque on the land in question which is in village Kuri, Tehsil Thakurdwara, district Moradabad. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 the S.H.O of P.S Dilari, distt. Moradabad has restrained the petitioner from building the mosque in question till permission is obtained from the District Magistrate.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4. In para 7 of the same it is alleged that there is a controversy regarding title to the land in question, and a suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Thakurdwara.
3. We are not entering into the factual controversy as to who is owner or bhumidhar of the land in question, and this dispute can be decided by the Civil/Revenue Court.
4. However, we wish to lay down the law in this connection.
5. This is a free and secular country. Subject to public order, morality and health, anybody is entitled under Art. 25 of the Constitution to build any house of worship, whether it is mosque church, temple etc. on his own land or on anyone else's land with the consent of that person. Art. 25(1) of the Constitution states:
“Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”
6. Hence, we make it clear that the petitioner is fully entitled to make a mosque on his own land or on someone else land with the permission of that person, and if he does so the authorities will give him full protection, and take strong action against anyone interfering with the petitioner's right. No permission of the D.M is required for this.
7. However, we would humbly suggest to the petitioner and others concerned that instead of mosques, temple etc. the country requires more schools, hospitals, technical institutions, vocational training institutes etc. for the country's scientific and technological development. Half of the population of the State is illiterate and a large number of young people wish to get technical training in order to get employment and hence it is absolutely essential that there should be more schools, technical institutes, vocational training institutes, hospitals etc. so that the country progresses, and the welfare of the people is attended to. Hence instead of building temples, mosques, etc. we recommend to all people (including the petitioner) to consider our suggestion, and follow it if it appeals to them.
8. In this connection we may also mention that Article 51-A(h) of the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of all citizens to develop the scientific temper.
9. However, we again make it clear that this is only our humble suggestion and the petitioner is fully entitled to make a mosque on his own land, or on someone else's land with his consent, and the authorities will give him full protection for doing so.
10. With the above observations the petition is finally disposed of.
11. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.
12. Petition Disposed of.
Alert