Jodhpur, Jul 13 Refusing to halt proceedings against several mosques, madrassas and dargahs situated within 50 km of the Indo-Pak border that have been issued issued notices, the Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed the state to constitute a committee to assess every case separately before recommending further action, including eviction or demolition, in accordance with law.
The court observed that "the issue at hand is one of national security and regulatory compliance, and not of religious discrimination", adding that while natural justice remains an important safeguard, it cannot be applied in an inflexible manner where disclosure of sensitive material may itself prejudice national security.
Justice Sameer Jain dismissed the petitions, led by Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti, that questioned the notices served to the mosques, madrassas and dargahs located across Jaisalmer, Barmer and Bikaner districts.
The notices alleged that the institutions had raised permanent structures on government or agricultural land without statutory approval and were occupying land in the sensitive border belt without legal sanction.
The authorities also cited intelligence inputs indicating that some of them could pose concerns from the perspective of national security.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the notices followed the Union government's June announcement that unauthorised structures within 50 km of the Indo-Pak border would be removed in the interest of national security.
It was submitted that several structures had already been demolished, creating a reasonable apprehension that the petitioners' institutions would meet a similar fate.
While dismissing the petitions, Justice Jain directed the state to constitute a committee, including a representative of the Border Security Force and the collector and SP of the area concerned to examine each property individually.
This committee will assess every case on its own facts, taking into account intelligence inputs, documentary evidence and statutory requirements before recommending any further action, including eviction or demolition, in accordance with law, the court said.
The petitioners claimed that the authorities had adopted a "predetermined approach" by invoking provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, without granting meaningful hearings.
They argued that the notices ignored statutory provisions permitting regularisation of land use, violated the principles of natural justice and were inconsistent with the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the demolition of structures.
The petitioners also challenged the mode of service of notices through affixation, the "short timelines" for response and what they described as contradictory stands taken by the state on the issue of national security.
Opposing the petitions, the Advocate General, Additional Solicitor General and other law officers submitted that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they involved disputed issues relating to ownership, title, legality of construction and the authority of the petitioners to represent the institutions.
They argued that the notices had been issued strictly under the statutory framework, which provides a complete adjudicatory and appellate mechanism.
The respondents further maintained that prior permission of the District Collector is mandatory under the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act for establishing public religious structures and that no such permissions had been obtained in these cases.
Stressing that the border belt is strategically sensitive, they argued that the measures were based on intelligence inputs, documentary material and broader policy decisions aimed at safeguarding national security.
Accepting the preliminary objections, the court held that many petitioners had failed to establish their locus standi or produce documents showing their legal authority to represent the religious institutions.
It also noted that the notices merely called upon the recipients to explain their position before the competent authority and did not direct immediate demolition. Since no coercive action had yet been taken, the apprehension of imminent demolition was held to be speculative.
