Places of Worship Act does not bar acquisition of religious sites for public purpose, says Allahabad HC

In Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others (citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344), a division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice JJ...

What Happened

In Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP and others (citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344), a division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by six tenants and shopkeepers in the Dalmandi area of Varanasi.
The petitioners sought to prevent their dispossession and the demolition of six ancient mosques (including Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Masjid Rangile Shah, Masjid Ali Raza Khan, Masjid Karimullah Baig, Masjid Nisaran, and Masjid Sangamarmar) scheduled for acquisition as part of road-widening linked to the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor development.
The court held that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibits only the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship from one denomination to another — it does not restrict or bar the State's authority to acquire religious properties for a secular public purpose such as road construction or infrastructure expansion.
The court invoked the doctrine of eminent domain, under which the State holds sovereign power to acquire private property — including religious property — for legitimate public welfare purposes, subject to due compensation under applicable acquisition law.
The petition was also dismissed on standing grounds: petitioners were tenants, not owners, and the court held that the Waqf Board and the Mutawalli (administrator) of each mosque bear primary responsibility for protecting those properties through appropriate legal proceedings.

Static Topic Bridges

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 — Exact Provisions

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was enacted on September 18, 1991, with the stated objective of maintaining the communal harmony and the secular character of the State by freezing the religious character of all places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. It is a short statute of 6 sections.

Section 3 (Bar on conversion): No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or any different section of the same religious denomination. Section 3 is the operative prohibition — conversion of religious character is barred.
Section 4(1) (Continuance of religious character): The religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day. No person shall convert, even partly, the religious character of any place of worship.
Section 4(2) (Abatement of pending suits): All suits, appeals, or proceedings in any court regarding conversion of religious character of a place of worship, which were pending on September 18, 1991, shall abate, and no fresh proceedings can be instituted.
Section 4(3)(a) — Exception for ASI monuments: The bar does not apply to any ancient and historical monument or archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959.
Section 5 (Ram Janmabhoomi exception): The Act expressly does not apply to the place of worship known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, or to any suit, appeal, or proceeding relating to it. This exemption was inserted because the matter was already sub judice before the Allahabad High Court.
Section 6: Penalties — any violation of Section 3 is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fine.

Connection to this news: The Allahabad HC read Section 3 and 4 strictly — they bar "conversion" of religious character, not state acquisition for a secular public purpose. The court held that acquisition does not amount to conversion from one religious denomination to another.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act)

The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 replaced the colonial-era Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It governs the process by which the State or Central Government can acquire private land for a public purpose, with mandatory Social Impact Assessment, enhanced compensation, and rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) provisions. The Act defines "public purpose" broadly, including infrastructure, defence, and urban development — road-widening for a heritage corridor qualifies.

Section 2 (Definitions and scope of "public purpose"): Includes strategic defence, infrastructure projects (roads, highways), and government-led development schemes. Section 2(1) makes the Act applicable to acquisitions by the Union, State Governments, or local authorities.
Section 4: Mandates a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study before acquisition, to be conducted in consultation with affected families.
Section 11: Preliminary notification (publication in Official Gazette) triggers the land acquisition process; landowners have 60 days to file objections.
Section 26: Compensation based on market value; a multiplier of 1x (urban) to 2x (rural) of market value is applied. Solatium of 100% of market value is additionally payable.
Section 40: Urgency clause — allows government to bypass SIA and consent requirements in cases of national defence, emergency, or urgency (invokable in urban infrastructure projects).
Waqf properties have an additional layer: under the Waqf Act, 1995, Sections 51 and 91 require specific procedures before Waqf land can be alienated or acquired.

Connection to this news: The State of UP invoked RFCTLARR Act provisions to justify the acquisition for the Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor. The Allahabad HC accepted that this constitutes a legitimate "public purpose" and that the 1991 Act does not override the acquisition framework.

Constitutional Framework — Article 25 and Article 300A

Two constitutional provisions are directly in tension in this judgment. Article 25 guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health and to other provisions of Part III. Article 300A (inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978) states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law — it is no longer a fundamental right (removed from Part III by the 44th Amendment) but remains a constitutional right enforceable under Article 226.

Article 25(1): Freedom of religion is subject to "public order, morality and health" and to other fundamental rights — courts have consistently held that the right to worship does not extend to protect the physical structure of a place of worship from lawful acquisition.
Article 25(2)(b): The State may make laws providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes — this clause has been used to uphold acquisition of temple properties as well.
Article 300A: A person can be deprived of property only by "authority of law" — acquisition under RFCTLARR Act 2013 satisfies this requirement because it is statutory and provides compensation. Hence no constitutional bar under 300A.
Eminent domain doctrine: Derived from Articles 300A and 31A; the State's sovereign power to acquire property for public purpose with compensation is inherent; religious status does not immunise a property from the State's eminent domain.
44th Amendment, 1978: Removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights (previously Article 31); made it a constitutional right under Article 300A, making it easier for the State to acquire property by law.

Connection to this news: The Allahabad HC held that neither Article 25 nor the Places of Worship Act prevents the State from exercising its eminent domain power for a public purpose — as long as compensation is paid under RFCTLARR 2013 and the acquisition is for a secular (non-religious conversion) purpose.

Supreme Court — Ayodhya Verdict (2019) Reference to the Act

In M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das (the Ayodhya case, decided November 9, 2019), the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court described the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 as "a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution." The court treated the Act as an affirmation of the constitutional commitment to secularism, preventing historical grievances from being weaponised to disturb communal harmony.

Ayodhya verdict citation: M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1 (decided November 9, 2019)
The Supreme Court held that the 1991 Act exemplifies the constitutional principle that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution (as established in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, 1973, and reaffirmed in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, 1994)
The 5-judge bench included Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer
The SC in Ayodhya directed the Centre to frame a scheme within 3 months for construction at the disputed site (for the temple) and provided an alternative 5-acre plot for a mosque
Crucially, the SC's strong endorsement of the 1991 Act in Ayodhya did not address the acquisition scenario — it addressed conversion of religious character, the same narrow reading the Allahabad HC applied in 2026

Connection to this news: The Allahabad HC's 2026 ruling is consistent with the SC's Ayodhya reading: the 1991 Act protects religious character against inter-denominational conversion, but does not prevent secular state action under eminent domain. The ruling may face further scrutiny before the Supreme Court.

Key Facts & Data

Case: Syed Rashid Ali and others vs State of UP (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 344), decided July 2, 2026
Bench: Justice JJ Munir and Justice Arun Kumar, Allahabad High Court
Six mosques proposed for acquisition in Dalmandi, Varanasi for Kashi Vishwanath Dham Corridor road-widening
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 enacted September 18, 1991; freeze date for religious character: August 15, 1947
Section 3: bars conversion of religious character; Section 4: declaration of continuance; Section 5: Ram Janmabhoomi exception
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 replaced Land Acquisition Act, 1894; provides 2x market value compensation (rural) and 1x (urban) plus 100% solatium
Article 300A inserted by 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 (property right shifted from fundamental to constitutional)
Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict: M. Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1, decided November 9, 2019