The Allahabad High Court has rejected a writ petition challenging the proposed road widening and beautification project in the Daalmandi market of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. A Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar ruled that the state, in exercise of its sovereign powers, can acquire religious places for public purposes, and such acquisition does not violate the Constitution. The writ petition was filed by six tenants of shops in the Daalmandi market, seeking protection against alleged forcible eviction from their shops and seeking to restrict the deployment of police or other security forces. In addition, they also demanded protection of six ancient mosques in the area, urging officials to develop an alternative route other than the widening of the road through the existing alignment. In its judgment, the High Court held that the petitioners were tenants and they did not possess ownership rights over the properties. It was further observed that they had mixed routine tenancy-related grievances and disputes with the sensitive issue of the protection of religious structures, rendering the writ petition legally unsustainable.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/do-not-open-until-2276-inside-the-us-time-capsule-that-won-t-be-opened-for-250-years-america-anniversary-1783040677941">Do not open until 2276: Inside the US time capsule that won't be opened for 250 years</a><h3>HC interprets Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991</h3>The Bench further observed that the petitioners had failed to fulfil the legal requirement of first making a formal representation before the competent authorities prior to seeking a writ of mandamus from the court. While examining the challenge to the proposed acquisition of six ancient mosques, the High Court interpreted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, stating that the law is meant to preserve the religious character of places of worship and prevent their conversion from one faith to another. It clarified that the Act does not bar the State from acquiring land, including religious sites, for legitimate public purposes. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the court reiterated that no temple, mosque, church or any other place of worship enjoys absolute immunity from acquisition. It noted that India's secular constitutional framework places all religious structures on an equal footing and permits their acquisition in accordance with the law for public utility or development projects. The Court also discovered that the State Government and the authorities are acting within the bounds of law and that the Daalmandi road widening project serves a large public interest. It added that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 gives sufficient safeguards in relation to compensation and rehabilitation, making the petitioners' concerns legally untenable.

Referring to the Places of Worship Act and the Ismail Faruqui verdict, the court said no temple, mosque or church is immune from acquisition. It also held that the petitioners, being tenants and not owners, had no legal basis to challenge the project.

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a writ petition challenging the proposed road widening and beautification project in the Daalmandi market of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. A Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar ruled that the state, in exercise of its sovereign powers, can acquire religious places for public purposes, and such acquisition does not violate the Constitution. The writ petition was filed by six tenants of shops in the Daalmandi market, seeking protection against alleged forcible eviction from their shops and seeking to restrict the deployment of police or other security forces. In addition, they also demanded protection of six ancient mosques in the area, urging officials to develop an alternative route other than the widening of the road through the existing alignment. In its judgment, the High Court held that the petitioners were tenants and they did not possess ownership rights over the properties. It was further observed that they had mixed routine tenancy-related grievances and disputes with the sensitive issue of the protection of religious structures, rendering the writ petition legally unsustainable. Also read: Do not open until 2276: Inside the US time capsule that won't be opened for 250 years HC interprets Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 The Bench further observed that the petitioners had failed to fulfil the legal requirement of first making a formal representation before the competent authorities prior to seeking a writ of mandamus from the court. While examining the challenge to the proposed acquisition of six ancient mosques, the High Court interpreted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, stating that the law is meant to preserve the religious character of places of worship and prevent their conversion from one faith to another. It clarified that the Act does not bar the State from acquiring land, including religious sites, for legitimate public purposes. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dr M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the court reiterated that no temple, mosque, church or any other place of worship enjoys absolute immunity from acquisition. It noted that India's secular constitutional framework places all religious structures on an equal footing and permits their acquisition in accordance with the law for public utility or development projects. The Court also discovered that the State Government and the authorities are acting within the bounds of law and that the Daalmandi road widening project serves a large public interest. It added that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 gives sufficient safeguards in relation to compensation and rehabilitation, making the petitioners' concerns legally untenable.

Referring to the Places of Worship Act and the Ismail Faruqui verdict, the court said no temple, mosque or church is immune from acquisition. It also held that the petitioners, being tenants and not owners, had no legal basis to challenge the project.

Religious places can be acquired for public projects: Allahabad HC dismisses Daalmandi plea

places-of-worship-act-1991

Places Of Worship Act 1991, News on Places Of Worship Act 1991, stories on Places Of Worship Act 1991, articles on Places Of Worship Act 1991, Places Of Worship Act 1991 stories at Wion, Places Of Worship Act 1991 news, Places Of Worship Act 1991 latest news

places of-worship-act-1991

Religious places can be acquired for public projects: Allahabad HC dismisses Daalmandi plea