Allahabad HC rejects PIL against Sambhal tehsildar's notice to mosque constructed on graveyard

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged a show-cause notice issued in relation a mosque constructed over land recorded as 'qabristan' (graveyard) in Sambhal [Afsaar v State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others]

Justice Alok Mathur found no ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court said the petitioner Afsaar can raise his defence before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar of Sambhal in his response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code.

"Subject to aforesaid observations, present writ petition is dismissed," the Court said on August 6.

It also noted that the petitioner did not appear to be in possession of the mosque.

"It is noticed that the only case made out by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice is the fact that ‘Mosque’ is existing on the land which is shown as ‘Qabristan’. From the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner is follower of Muslim faith and offers prayer in the said Mosque, but clearly he is not the person who has either constructed the Mosque or claims occupation of the said Mosque," the Court said.

The petition challenged the notice as per which mosque was constructed on land recorded as 'qabristan' in the revenue records.

The notice asked to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the illegal encroachment of the Gaon Sabha land and penalty not be imposed for such illegal occupation.

The petitioner argued that the notice is illegal and arbitrary. However, the State said the defence can be raised before tehsildar who would pass appropriate orders only after considering the objections.

Considering the submission, the Court found no ground to interfere with the notice issued in February. It held the notice was not shown to be contrary to law, illegal or arbitrary in any manner.

"Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," it said.

Advocate Ayub Khan represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]