Back
Dismisses PIL Against Notice Over Mosque on Qabristan Land
Court refuses to interfere with under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, directs petitioner to raise objections before Tehsildar.
The has dismissed a challenging a issued to a petitioner in connection with a mosque allegedly constructed on land recorded as 'Qabristan' (graveyard) in the revenue records of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur found no grounds to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under , observing that the petitioner's defenses were best raised before the .
The Dispute: A Mosque on Recorded Graveyard Land
The petitioner, Afsaar , challenged a notice issued in RC Form-20 under . The notice alleged that a mosque had been constructed over Khata No. 221, Gata No. 18/377 and 163/38, spanning 147 decimal of land — property recorded as 'Qabristan' in official revenue records. The notice called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from what authorities described as an illegal of land, and why penalty should not be imposed for such occupation.
Petitioner's Contention: Mosque as an Essential Part of Qabristan
Learned counsel for the petitioner, , argued that the notice was illegal and arbitrary, contending that a mosque is an "essential part" of a Qabristan. The petitioner, a follower of the Muslim faith who offers prayers at the mosque, maintained that the existence of the place of worship on land classified as graveyard rendered the notice untenable.
The State, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, countered that the petitioner had only been subjected to the impugned notice dated , and that he retained full opportunity to be heard before respondent No. 3 — the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sambhal. The State emphasized that all legally permissible grounds raised by the petitioner would be duly considered before any final order was passed.
Court's Reasoning: Defenses Belong Before the Tehsildar
The Court observed that the sole ground advanced by the petitioner for challenging the notice was the existence of the mosque on the land recorded as 'Qabristan'. However, a critical gap emerged — the petitioner did not assert that he had constructed the mosque, nor did he claim occupation of the said property.
"From the 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 further noted that the grounds taken by the petitioner amounted to nothing more than potential defenses to the , which could be appropriately raised before the in response to the Section 67 proceedings.
"In any view of the matter, grounds taken by the petitioner in the present are only his defense to the impugned notice which may be raised by the petitioner before the in his response to the show cause notice issued under Section 67 of the Code, 2006."
Decision and Implications
Dismissing the , the Court held:
"Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the matter under ."
However, the Court safeguarded the petitioner's rights by clarifying that he would have full opportunity to appear before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sambhal, and submit his reply to the . The was directed to duly consider all objections before passing any orders.
The judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts under Article 226 will not ordinarily interfere with show-cause notices at a premature stage, particularly when adequate alternative remedies exist before statutory authorities. It also underscores that a person challenging an notice must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the property — mere religious association or worship at a site does not, by itself, establish standing to challenge such proceedings.
The petition was dismissed on , with the Court explicitly declining to find the notice contrary to law, illegal, or arbitrary.
