The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the acquisition of Takiya Masjid land in Ujjain for expansion of adjoining Mahakal temple complex [Mohammed Taiyab vs. Urban Administration And Development Department & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner, being a mere devotee and not an owner, had no locus to question the acquisition proceedings.

It observed that there was no substantive challenge to the acquisition notifications and that the grievance was confined to the award, for which an alternative statutory remedy existed.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the acquisition proceedings were fundamentally flawed since the mandatory social impact assessment under Sections 4 to 8 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was never conducted.

He submitted that the order relied upon by the High Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the acquisition proceedings stood confirmed.

However, the Bench questioned his client’s standing to raise the challenge. The judges pointed out that the petitioner was merely an occupant and not a landowner.

Ahmadi responded that the petitioner nonetheless had the right to question the acquisition on grounds of illegality.

“I have a locus to challenge the order on the acquisition. So far as acquisition is concerned, there is a mandatory provision of social impact assessment under Sections 4 to 8,” he submitted.

The Bench, however, was not convinced. It noted that the petitioner’s challenge was limited to the award and not the acquisition itself.

“The same question remains, Mr. Ahmadi. There is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Only to the award," it said.

Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed a separate petition challenging the demolition of the Takiya Masjid itself.

That plea, filed by residents who claimed to offer namaz at the mosque, was rejected after the Court noted the State’s position that the land had been acquired and compensation paid, and that any grievance lay under the statutory remedies available under the 2013 Act.

The present petitioner, a self-described devotee and regular worshipper at the Takiya Masjid, filed a separate writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was also dismissed.

The January 11 judgment of the High Court upheld the acquisition and dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the land award for the Mahakal Lok Phase-II project.

The High Court held that the petitioners, who were neither recorded landowners nor title-holders, had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act to seek reference on compensation, not acquisition.

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

According to the petition, the acquired parcels formed part of the Takiya Masjid Waqf property duly recorded with the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board since 1985. The mosque, it stated, was demolished on January 11, 2025, the same day the High Court dismissed the earlier petitions.

The petitioner claimed that the State had acquired the land to expand parking facilities for the adjoining Mahakal temple complex under the Mahakal Lok Phase-II development plan.

The plea alleged that this was not a valid “public purpose” under Section 2(1)(b) of the 2013 Act since the land was being taken for the convenience of one religious institution at the cost of another, violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution.

It further contended that the acquisition was void for non-compliance with Section 91 of the Waqf Act, which requires the Collector to notify and hear the Waqf Board before taking over any Waqf land. The plea also alleged misuse of urgency powers under Section 40 of the 2013 Act to bypass safeguards of social impact assessment and rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition today brings finality to the dispute over the land acquisition for the Mahakal Lok Phase-II project, a major state-backed redevelopment scheme in Ujjain aimed at expanding the Mahakal temple complex and adjoining public spaces.

The petition was filed through advocate Vaibhav Choudhary.