The Supreme Court, while upholding an order passed by Madras High Court, has held that directions issued by the High Court warranted no interference and observed during the hearing that constructing illegal structures is not the way to preach religion.

The Madras High Court on November 22, 2023, held that the construction of a mosque without any approval from the planning authorities is illegal and unauthorized and no person can claim any right, title or interest in the land. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court, the Hydha Muslim Welfare Masjid-E Hidaya approached the Apex Court through a Special Leave Petition.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “In view of the fact that:

i. The petitioner is admittedly not the owner of the subject property;

ii. The subject land, vests in Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (for short ‘CMDA’), free from all encumbrances;

iii. The petitioner is an unauthorized occupant.

iv. The petitioner never applied to sanction building plans;

v. The construction was raised in a totally illegal manner;

vi. The illegal construction, remained unabated despite notices being served by the CMDA Authorities on 09th December, 2020,

we are satisfied that the directions issued by the High Court warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

He submitted, “The land was vacant for a very long time and the government did not need the land for any public purpose…the Government has not taken any action against thousands of houses that are pukka… and various temples which are constructed, but they just want to demolish only this dargah because this happens to be a Muslim dargah… The Government has also provided electricity to all these houses, water supply to all these houses, streetlights to all these houses, roads have been laid...Government has done that.”

Justice Surya Kant responded by saying, “Does it mean that you will encroach on the land? The land belonged to the Government, and they may or may not use it. You did not have any right to its occupation…We are very clear whether it is a temple or a mosque, there cannot be any unauthorized constructions.”

The Court asked the Petitioner to show whether it is the owner of the property, whether it applied for sanction for construction on the land and whether it has denied receipt of notice regarding illegal construction.

Justice also remarked during the hearing that there is direction of the Supreme Court to demolish all unauthorised religious constructions, irrespective of which community they belong to. "Whatever is illegal has to be demolished, this is not the way to preach religion", the Judge said.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Nisha Banu and Justice N. Mala, had recorded their disapproval of the apathy exhibited by the officials and had held, This Court has time and again been warning the official respondents to ensure that no constructions are carried on without proper planning permission. In spite of repeated orders of this Court, the official respondents seem to turn a nelson's eye to unauthorised constructions. In our view the official respondents 1 and 2 are also responsible for this situation, hence we direct the respondents 1 and 2 to bear the expenses for demolition of the structure. The 8th respondent is given three (3) months time to relocate the mosque. The 1st respondent shall within four (4) weeks thereafter demolish the unauthorised structure.”

While upholding the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court further said that it has already directed demolition of all unauthorized religious structures, be it a temple or a mosque. All High Courts are also monitoring it and the State Governments have also been issued appropriate directions.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition whilst in the peculiar facts and circumstances, granted time to the Petitioner to remove the structure, on or before May 31, 2024.

Cause Title: Hydha Muslim Welfare Masjid-E Hidaya and Madarasa v. N. Dinakaran & ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, Advocates M.P. Parthiban, Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Shalini Mishra, R. Sudhakaran, T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal and P.V.K. Deivendran