IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, ALOK AWASTHI, JJ.
Writ Petition No. 10497 of 2022
Hindu Front For Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) Through Its President Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
With
Kuldeep Tiwari – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10484 of 2022
With
Writ Petition No. 8986 of 2026
Salek Chand Jain – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 28334 of 2019
Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar Thr. Its President Abdul Samad Khan S/o Sirajuddin Khan – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Mp & Ors. – Respondents
With
Writ Appeal No. 559 of 2026
Qazi Zakullah And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
With
Writ Petition No. 6514 of 2013
Antar Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Decided On : 15-05-2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
[1] The aforesaid petitions and appeal deal with the common issues, to the claim of prayer by hindus/namaz by muslims/prayer by Jain samaj in "disputed area" of Bhojshala and Kamal Maula Mosque situated at Dhar. In these petitions, a challenge has also been made to the order dated 7.4.2003 passed by Archaeological Survey of India to the extent to restrict the right of Hindus to worship in Bhojshala Complex "the disputed area" on a particular day and timings and also challenge to the order permitting the muslim community to offer namaz on Friday in the "disputed area" and in some petitions different reliefs are claimed in relation to the same "disputed area". Regard being had to the similitude of these petitions, they are being disposed of by the common order, however, the facts of each case and the arguments of learned counsel for parties are recorded separately.
WRIT PETITION NO.10497/2022
(HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO.976) THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MS. RANJANA AGNIHOTRI & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2] The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"[i] Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction or declaration to the effect that only the members of Hindu Community have fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India to perform pooja and rituals at the place of Goddess Vagdevi/Maa Saraswati within the premises of ‘Saraswati Sadan’ commonly known as ‘Bhojshala’ situated at khasra land No.604 (Old No.313) within the city and District Dhar, State of Madhya Pradesh and the members of Muslim community have no right to use any portion of the aforesaid property for any religious purposes;
[ii] Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Government of India to create a Trust under the provisions of Trust Act, 1882 for the purposes of administration and management of the affairs of Bhojshala Temple and Sanskrit learning within the property in question at Land No.604 situated at Dhar town, District- Dhar and ASI be directed to continue to have overall administration and management of the property in accordance with the provisions of 1958 Act;
[iii] Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Trust (created by the Govt. of India in terms of prayer number (i) to re-establish the idol/Pratima of Goddess Saraswati and make provision for Darshan, Pooja and Worship of Goddess Saraswati and make proper management of Sanskrit learning in consonance with the Bhojshala as originally established; |
[iv] Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from allowing the Muslims to perform prayer or worship in any manner within the temple complex i.e. property in question at Land No.604 at City and District Dhar;
[v] Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing para 1 of the order dated 07.04.2003 passed by Director, Archaeological Survey of India and also para 3 of the said order to the extent it restricts the right of Hindus to worship within Bhojshala complex i.e. the property in question at Land No.604 (old 313) in the city of District Dhar and direct that Hindus shall be permitted to perform Pooja daily without any restriction;
[vi] Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government of India to undertake every effort to bring back the Pratima of Goddess Saraswati from London Museum in United Kingdom and re-establish the same within the ‘Saraswati Sadan’/Bhojshala complex situated at Khasra land No.604 (Old No.313) within the city and District Dhar, State of Madhya Pradesh;
[vii] Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioners as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and for which the Petitioners may be found entitled to;
[viii] Allow the Petition with costs;
[3] Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that the present petition is not for claim of ownership on the disputed area of Bhojshala and Kama











Surendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others
DLF Housing Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corpn. & Ors.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh & Ors
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors.
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & another
M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and other connected petitions
M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs. vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
Ghulam Abbas and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others
Masjid Shahid Ganj Versus S.G.P Committee
Gunwant Kaur(Smt) & Ors. Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors.
Real Estate Agencies v State of Goa
State of Gujarat v Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Real Estate Agencies v State of Goa
Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors and other connected petitions
Sheodan Singh Vs. Daryao Kunwar (Smt.)
Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal
The Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not bar the determination of the religious character of a place of worship, which must be established through evidence in court.
The court ruled that the plaints disclose a valid cause of action, are not barred by limitation, and the religious character of the property requires evidence to be determined at trial.
Parties in religious disputes can assert rights based on historical practices and public endowment; possession can confer title through adverse possession.
A court may grant leave to institute a suit without notice under Section 80(2) CPC if urgent relief is necessary, and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local investigation is valid and ....
Appointment of Advocate Commissioner for inspection of Gyanvapi premises – Report of Commissioner does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute and is subject to pro....
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.