Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea for Regular Namaz on Disputed Land in Sambhal

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking permission to offer regular Namaz on a piece of land in Sambhal district’s Ikona village, along with a request for police protection.

The case was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad. The court observed that the constitutional right to practice religion under Articles 25 and 26 does not allow the conversion of private property into an uncontrolled or large scale congregational prayer site.

The petitioner, Aseen, claimed ownership of the land identified as Khata No. 613, Gata No. 629, based on a registered gift deed dated June 16, 2023. He alleged that local authorities, in coordination with certain individuals, were stopping religious gatherings on the land, violating his fundamental rights.

However, the Uttar Pradesh government opposed the plea, stating that the land is officially recorded as Abadi land under a public use category. Officials also informed the court that the site had traditionally been used for occasional prayers during festivals such as Eid, and not for regular organised congregational Namaz.

The state argued that the petitioner was attempting to introduce routine prayers involving large groups, which could potentially disturb public order and communal harmony in the area.

The court noted that while individuals may use private property for limited religious practices, regular congregational activities involving larger gatherings are subject to legal and administrative regulation.

The bench further observed that the right to religious freedom is not absolute and must be exercised in a manner consistent with public order, morality, and health. It emphasised that no individual can claim unrestricted or repeated religious use of land, especially when official records indicate otherwise.

The judges also pointed out inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claim of ownership and said the pleadings lacked sufficient supporting evidence against revenue records.

Even if the land were assumed to be private, the court said the proposed use as a regular prayer venue justified intervention by authorities to prevent possible tension and maintain peace.

Dismissing the petition, the bench stated that authorities are not required to wait for an actual disturbance before taking preventive action if there is a likelihood of public order issues.

The ruling reiterates the principle that religious practices must be balanced with legal regulations and the need to maintain communal harmony.