The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the demolition of the Takiya Masjid in Ujjain, which had been removed by the Madhya Pradesh authorities following land acquisition and payment of compensation.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the order while hearing a challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had refused similar relief. The High Court had observed that the right to practice religion does not depend on any specific place, and therefore, the acquisition of land containing a mosque does not by itself infringe religious rights.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the mosque was over 200 years old and was demolished only to create parking space for the Mahakal Temple complex. The Bench, however, noted that an earlier challenge to the acquisition proceedings had been withdrawn, and therefore could not be reopened now.

“Too late now, nothing can be done,” Justice Nath remarked.

Shamshad pointed out that the High Court’s observation — that the petitioners could offer namaz in another mosque or at home — was flawed. The Bench, however, said the High Court’s reasoning was justified, especially since compensation had been awarded for the acquired land.

When the petitioners argued that compensation was paid to unauthorized persons, the Court stated that appropriate remedies exist in law to contest such issues.

To summarize, worshippers of the Takiya Masjid approached the High Court after learning that the government had acquired the mosque land to expand Mahakal Lok Parishar parking. The mosque was demolished after compensation was awarded under the land acquisition process.

They had sought reconstruction of the mosque and an inquiry against officials, but the single judge rejected the plea, holding that the acquisition had attained finality and noting that the Waqf Board had already filed a civil suit claiming entitlement to compensation.

In appeal, the State argued that several petitions by individuals claiming possession of the land were already dismissed and that the acquisition was lawful. In October, a Division Bench upheld the single judge’s ruling, relying on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Mohammad Ali Khan v. Special Land Acquisition Office (1978), which held that Article 25 is a personal right of practicing religion and is not tied to any particular location.

Case Title: MOHAMMED TAIYAB & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
SLP(C) No. 31842/2025