In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by tenants and shopkeepers in Varanasi’s historic Dalmandi Market, who sought to halt the widening and beautification of the street as part of the Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor development project. The Court held that the petitioners, being mere tenants, have limited rights and cannot obstruct a public purpose project involving land acquisition.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, six tenants operating shops in Dalmandi Market/Street (bearing numbers CK43/168-169, CK68/1, CK69/32, CK43/147, CK68/36, and CK43/181), claimed long-standing business operations passed down through generations. They challenged Government Orders dated 31.03.2025 and 30.07.2025, which allocated substantial funds for widening the street to facilitate easier movement of pilgrims and tourists to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
The petitioners alleged arbitrary threats of dispossession without following due process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also sought protection of six ancient mosques in the area (Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran, and Masjid Sangamarmar), arguing that their demolition would violate the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Key Issues Before the Court
- Whether tenants have locus standi to challenge road widening and land acquisition for public purpose.
- Legality of acquisition proceedings and compliance with the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
- Applicability of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and the Waqf Act, 1995, to prevent acquisition of religious properties.
- Maintainability of the writ petition for mandamus without prior demand for justice.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.J. Munir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar delivered the judgment.
The Court observed:
- The petitioners are admitted tenants, not owners. Their rights are limited to tenancy under lease agreements and rent receipts. Owners/landlords have not challenged the project.
- No prior formal representation or demand for justice was made before approaching the Court, rendering the petition for mandamus defective.
- Acquisition for road widening serves a clear public purpose. Proceedings under the 2013 Act provide for compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Mutual agreements for sale deeds were also contemplated.
- The Places of Worship Act, 1991 preserves the religious character of places of worship as on 15.08.1947 and bars conversion between religions/denominations. It does not prohibit acquisition by the State for public infrastructure with fair compensation.
- Waqf properties can be acquired under the 2013 Act, subject to Sections 51 and 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995. The Waqf Board’s response indicated procedural compliance.
- Actions by Nagar Nigam (under UP Municipal Corporation Act) for dilapidated structures and Varanasi Development Authority (under UP Urban Planning Act) are independent and lawful.
- Mixing tenancy rights with protection of mosques creates a multifarious cause of action. Mutawallis and the Waqf Board are the proper authorities for religious properties.
The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage, with the Court emphasising that development for public convenience cannot be stalled on untenable grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Tenants’ Rights: Tenants have limited standing in acquisition matters; primary rights vest with title holders.
- Public Purpose Prevails: Infrastructure projects like corridor development qualify as public purpose, allowing acquisition with statutory safeguards.
- Places of Worship Act: Protects religious character but does not create an absolute bar against acquisition for larger public welfare.
- Procedural Compliance: Prior demand for justice is essential for mandamus; courts will not entertain premature challenges.
- Waqf Properties: Acquisition is permissible following prescribed procedures.
Case Details
Case Name: Syed Rashid Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others
Citation: Writ – C No. – 16649 of 2026
Court: Allahabad High Court
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.J. Munir & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 