The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging a show-cause notice issued in connection with a mosque allegedly constructed on land recorded as ‘qabristan’ (graveyard) in the revenue records of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.

The bench headed by Justice Alok Mathur found no grounds to exercise the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the notice. The Court observed that the petitioner, Afsaar, could raise all his objections before the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Sambhal, in response to the notice issued under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.

“Subject to aforesaid observations, present writ petition is dismissed,” the Court said in its August 6 order.

The show-cause notice had sought an explanation as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the alleged illegal encroachment of Gaon Sabha land and why a penalty should not be imposed for such occupation.

The petitioner had challenged the notice as illegal and arbitrary, contending that a mosque was already existing on the disputed land. However, the State argued that the petitioner could present his defence before the Tehsildar, who would pass an appropriate order after considering his objections.

The High Court noted that the petitioner’s primary case was based on the existence of the mosque on land recorded as ‘qabristan’. However, it observed that the petitioner did not appear to be the person who had constructed or occupied the mosque.

“It is noticed that the only case made out by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice is the fact that ‘Mosque’ is existing on the land which is shown as ‘Qabristan’,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that although Afsaar was a follower of the Muslim faith and offered prayers at the mosque, he neither claimed to have constructed it nor established that he was in occupation of the property.

Finding that the show-cause notice issued in February had not been demonstrated to be contrary to law, illegal or arbitrary, the Court declined to interfere at this stage.

“Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the Court held.

Advocate Ayub Khan appeared for the petitioner.