400-year-old Mancha Masjid loses plea against road widening project in Ahmedabad

Considering the submission of the government that the road widening was “in larger public interest”, the court also rejected the request to stay the July 25 AMC notice by four weeks. The oral order of Justice Mauna Bhatt on Tuesday rejected the plea of the masjid trust challenging the AMC notice on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the AMC were contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations (GPMC) Act, 1949, under which the powers of decision making are assigned to the municipal corporation commissioner.

The petitioner contended that in the present case, the notices to Mancha Masjid were issued by the Deputy Estate Officer of the AMC and the hearings were also conducted before the same officer and therefore “deservest to be quashed and set aside”. The petition also stated that after the Trust — a registered Waqf — objected to the show-cause notices during the hearing in January this year, the Standing Committee of the AMC passed orders “rejecting the objections of the petitioner… is clearly non-application of mind.”

The court order noted the submissions of the petitioner which stated that the demolition of the 400-year-old ancient Masjid “forming part of religious and cultural heritage.., would violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner of independent religion and worship and therefore also the notice deserves to be quashed and set aside.” The petitioner also submitted that the name of the Masjid appears in the revenue record and after the enactment of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Masjid and its properties came to be registered as Mancha Masjid Trust to facilitate prayers, as a property under the Waqf Act, 1995.

The contention of the petitioner was that the AMC introduced the Town Planning Scheme No. 11 (Bapunagar) and initiated proceedings under the provisions of the GPMC Act, 1949 for widening of the road with an AMC Deputy Estate Officer issuing show-cause notice dated December 17, 2024 as to why property may not be acquired and construction in question may not be removed. A separate notice on the same day also came to be issued for the open land to be acquired, as per the petitioner. The petitioner had filed replies on December 31, 2024.

The petitioners’ advocate also submitted to the court that the AMC did not follow the procedure laid down by the GPMC Act and the Waqf Act. The petition contended that despite the petitioning Waqf raising an objection during a hearing on January 1, 2025, a notice was issued on July 25, directing the petitioners to “give peaceful vacant possession of the land and the building”.

The government pleader argued that the AMC’s Standing Committee passed an order on September 19, 2024 authorising the Municipal Commissioner to take appropriate steps under the GPMC Act. The court order notes the submission of the government pleader that the the Road Line prescribed by the Municipal Commissioner is of vital importance to regulate traffic facilitating planned growth of the road, leading to Kalupur Railway station and a junction for the Ahmedabad Metro Rail and “it is in the larger public interest”, The state also submitted that the provisions of the Waqf Act does not apply as “special powers are exercised as available to the Municipal Commissioner under provisions of the GPMC Act…” The state also submitted that the provisions of the Act had been followed in granting hearing to the petitioner. The government pleader submitted, “Therefore, individual inconvenience may be ignored as against the larger public interest more particularly, when the statutory powers are exercised by the authority after following due procedure under provisions of law…”

The court considered the submissions of the state and said that the provisions of the Waqf Act “are not applicable because of special powers exercised by the Municipal Commissioner”. The court order states, “in the opinion of this Court when the procedure prescribed under… GPMC Act, 1949 is followed by issuance of notice to the stakeholders and after taking approval of the Standing Committee as envisaged under the said provision… no error is committed as contended on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is rejected.” The court also rejected the request of the petitioner to stay the effect and implementation of the July 25 order for four weeks.