Rajasthan HC Dismissed Petitions Challenging Proposed Demolition of Religious Sites
It is a universally acknowledged fact that definitely has to be accepted without any quibbles that national security always stands paramount and stands above everything else! While according once again its stamp of approval to what has been stated hereinabove, we see that the Rajasthan High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v The State of Rajasthan in Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v The State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:RJ-JP:30648 that was finally pronounced on 13.07.2026 has deemed it absolutely fit to dismiss the petitions challenging the proposed demolition of various mosques, madrasas and dargahs situated within 50 kilometers of India-Pakistan border. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain who authored this notable judgment appreciated the Union Government’s decision to enhance and rationalize the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of the Border Security Force (BSF), stating that it manifests a proactive and well-calibrated approach to address emerging security challenges. It was unequivocally held by the Bench that the “attempt to attribute communal color” to the proposed evictions or demolitions was wholly misplaced and devoid of factual foundation. Further, it was underscored explicitly by the Bench that since the properties are situated near the international border, there was a need for heightened vigilance and regulatory oversight. No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “In the present batch of writ petitions, the ambit of the controversy, albeit not exhaustively circumscribed, is broadly and predominantly delineated by the challenge laid to the correctness and/or validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices (hereinafter referred to as “notices”) issued by the respondents to the petitioners, qua their respective properties and constructions situated within a radius of approximately 50 kilometers from the Indo–Pakistan border. The impugned actions as alleged by the petitioners are purportedly undertaken under diverse statutory regimes, inter alia, the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, as well as the relevant rules governing Gram Panchayats. In view of the fact that the instant writ petitions necessitate adjudication upon common and overlapping questions of law, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for all contesting parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026, titled Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., is hereby treated as the lead matter. It is, however, cautiously clarified that any dissimilarities or variances in the present batch of petitions are confined strictly to the individual factual matrices and shall not impinge upon, nor bear relevance to, the uniform questions of law that fall for determination before this Court; and that the instant judgment shall be applicable on mutatis mutandis basis on all the connected petitions.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while dwelling on the factual matrix envisages in para 2 that, “The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be determined by this Court pertains to the issuance of show-cause notices under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”), more particularly under Section 90, 91A thereof, as well as under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1954”) more particularly under Section 20, and other enabling provisions of the relevant statutory framework. By way of the impugned notices, it has been alleged that the petitioners and similarly situated persons, who are operating Madrasas, Masjids/Mosques, and Dargahs, are conducting such activities, have erected permanent constructions, without any valid permission or authorization, and are in unauthorized occupation of Government land/agricultural land, without requisite sanction, approval, or lawful conversion, as per the legal framework. It is further alleged by the respondents that the said structures/properties are located within a range of 0–50 kilometers from the international border (Indo-Pak Border), falling within a notified or prohibited zone, and have been established without due permission. The respondents have primarily contended that on the basis of available records, documentary material, complaints, and inputs purportedly received through intelligence sources, the existence and operation of such structures may pose a threat to national security. In this backdrop, the respondents have proceeded to issue notices seeking vacation, resumption of possession, and consequential takeover of the subject properties.”
As we see, the Bench is most emphatic in pointing out in para 21 that, “Upon according solicitous consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel qua the substantive particulars delineated supra, and upon a meticulous scrutiny of the documentary evidence in conjunction with the governing legal tenets, and the judgments cited at the Bar, this court proceedeth to record its opinion, noteworthy record and adjudicatory determinations, ad-seriatim:
The line between safety and vulnerability is often a thin, trembling cord. When our borders become heavy with the breath of unease, the law cannot merely be a cold document, it must become the beating heart of our protection.
Sovereignty is not an abstraction; it is the collective, aching desire to keep our home whole, defended not by silence, but by a vigilant, sleepless love for the soil we walk upon.
We must understand that even stones placed in the name of faith cannot hold sacred ground. Our land is a living testament to a shared promise, a Republic’s covenant that demands, prioritizing the safety of the many over the quiet demands of the few.
True security is not a cage for the spirit; it is the soft, sturdy wall that allows freedom to sleep soundly at night. It is the embrace that keeps our liberty from being torn away by the winds of chaos. When the voice of our nation calls out, urgent, and true we must answer with a unified strength, understanding that the deepest devotion we can offer to our state, is commitment, and the sense of security, that our land shall always remain sans any bloodshed.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “At the outset, it is observed that the petitioners have directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Upon a careful scrutiny of the pleadings, this Court finds that the petitions suffer from inherent deficiencies, particularly with regard to locus standi, identity of the petitioners, and absence of cogent material establishing their nexus with the concerned Masjid, Madrasa, or Dargah, as no credible documents, resolutions, or authorizations from any legally recognized body or society have been placed on record, in most of the petitions.”
Most forthrightly, it is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 29 directing and holding that, “Further, it is noteworthy that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, pertaining to demolition of structures in other contexts, including religious bodies or alleged arbitrary bulldozing, stand on a completely different footing and are clearly distinguishable for the reasons delineated ad infra, as the present matters arise in the backdrop of national security considerations; the properties in question are situated within a highly sensitive border zone; admittedly, no permissions have been obtained under the Act of 1954 or other applicable laws; the show-cause notices have been issued, and opportunity of hearing has been granted; no demolition or coercive action has been undertaken till date; no cogent material has been placed on record to substantiate allegations of targeted or discriminatory action. Notably, in Abdul Khalek & Ors. (supra) the issue before the Court pertained to the properties/encroachers residing inside a land belonging to forest department, and in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (supra), the same pertained to use of bulldozers upon the land/property belonging to criminals/convicts/accused, and thus, even in the wildest dreams, the same cannot be kept at the same pedestal at that of the present case, where the property in question is in vicinity of international border and the issue is of national security. Thus, the reliance placed on such precedents is misconceived.”
Most commendably, most rationally and so also most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely and directing and holding in para 32 that, “This Court is of a stout view, as delineated hereinbelow:
Thence, this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation-responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have abstained from participation. Accordingly, the writ petitions are held to be not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 33 noting that, “However, before parting away, it is extremely essential to delineate certain supplementary observations, directions, and the same are therefore being noted ad infra:
33.1 Considering the element of national security, issues arising therefrom, and auxiliary issues, a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, shall be constituted to examine cases (on individual basis) involving sensitive properties;
33.2 In the foregoing backdrop, the constitution of a Committee comprising, inter alia, an officer of the Border Security Force ensures that any decision taken is informed by relevant intelligence, ground realities, and security considerations. Accordingly, the said Committee is best placed to take an appropriate and reasoned decision in the matter, balancing individual rights with the overarching interest of national security; which shall suffice the principles of natural justice vis-a-vis the issue of threat to national security.
33.3 The said Committee shall take decisions on the basis of available material, evidence, intelligence inputs, and other relevant considerations, and shall be entitled to adopt a procedure commensurate with the exigencies of national security;
33.4 The Committee, in discharge of its mandate and having regard to the exigencies of the situation, may order eviction, dispossession, demolition, or adopt any other appropriate course of action, as deemed necessary, considering the material available, and as per the warrants of the situation and circumstances.
33.5 It is clarified that while principles of natural justice shall not be wholly dispensed with, their application may be suitably tailored, keeping in view the nature of the case, sensitivity involved, a threat to national security as alleged and larger public interest, as also categorically upheld in the ratio encapsulated in Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. (supra), and fairly conceded by the parties herein.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 34 that, “In light of the above, the present batch of writ petitions stands dismissed. No order is made as to costs. Pending applications, if any, along with the stay applications, shall stand disposed.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 35 that, “A copy of the present judgment be also placed in the connected petitions.”
All told, the bottom-line of this noteworthy judgment is that national interests stands paramount always and all other interests have to pave way for national interests which stands above everything else! It is in this backdrop that the Rajasthan High Court has rejected petitions against demolitions of mosques, madrasas and dargahs situated within 50 km of India-Pakistan border. The Court also ordered the constitution of a committee comprising the district collector, superintendent of police and a representative of the BSF for examination of sensitive properties along the border. The Bench indubitably held that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation-responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists materials justifying such action. Absolutely right!
Author Bio
