# Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10803 of 2026
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Mrs. Garima Prashad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/commissioner-hindu-religious-endowments-madras-v-sri-lakshmindra-thirtha-54326
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
38. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the limitation
issue, and all the contentions of both parties are left open to be raised and decided before the
Arbitral Tribunal.

39. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

40. I would like to acknowledge the consummate arguments made by counsel appearing on
behalf of both the parties and for the diligent spadework in preparation of the notes of arguments. I
would also go amiss if I did not acknowledge the significant contribution and appreciate my
Research Associate Ms. Saumya Patel for her in-depth research and assistance provided to me.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 10803 of 2026

Aseen ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, and to what extent, the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 extend to the
conduct of congregational religious activities, whether on public land or private premises.
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Arts. 25 and 26 - Prayer/Namaz on public land and private premises -
Claim for security/protection and permission to offer Namaz at alleged private property - State
case that land recorded as public land and petitioner seeking to introduce regular large scale
congregational prayers - Scope of protection under Arts. 25 and 26:
Held: (i) Public land is meant for common use, and no individual or group can claim a right to use
it as an exclusive or recurring religious space; the State is bound to ensure equal access and
cannot permit preferential or exclusive use of such land.
(ii) The right to practise religion is subject to public order, including access, movement and peaceful living,
and cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with these rights of others.
(iii) Private property may be used for personal and limited religious activity so long as it remains genuinely
private, occasional and non-disruptive; however, once such use extends to regular or organized congregational
activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it falls outside the protected domain and may
attract regulatory control.
4 All. Aseen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1347
(iv) Where such activity in the private property becomes regular, organized or large in scale, it may amount to
a change in the nature of use of the premises and is subject to applicable laws, including planning and local
regulations.
(v) The introduction or expansion of a religious use or practice not previously prevalent, particularly where it
disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 and 26. The State is not required to
wait for actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect
public life. [Para 20]
Allegations of interference, threats and collusion were general in nature and not supported by
any material - Land in question recorded as public land - Even assuming the land to be private,
petitioner was seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings including persons from
within and outside the village - Earlier, Namaz was offered only on specific occasions such as Eid
- Expansion beyond a limited private sphere falls outside the protected domain and is subject to
regulation - No enforceable legal right made out - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24,
25] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954
SCR 1005.
M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501.
Munazir Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-C No. 5996 of 2026.
Pastor Selvakumar Samu v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 32058 of 2024.
Marantha Full Gospel Ministries v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 1097 of 2026.
Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 1080 of 2026.

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
List of Keywords
Freedom of religion; Articles 25 and 26; Public order; Public land; Private premises; Namaz; Congregational
religious activities; Private prayer; Religious gatherings; Regulatory control; Public consequences; Social
harmony; Preventive measures; No enforceable legal right.
CASE ARISING FROM
Pending representation for security/protection and permission to offer Namaz at alleged private property
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Intekhab Alam Khan, Janardan Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has sought the following reliefs:

 "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent authority to provide security/protection and permission of the prayer (Namaz) at the
private premises (i.e. area 82.80 sqr mtr of Abadi Land) of petitioner situated at Village Ikona,
Pargana Rajpura, Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal.

 (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2/District Magistrate Sambhal to consider and pass the appropriate order upon the
representation dated 15.11.2005 pending before him within stipulated period, otherwise petitioner
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

3. The petitioner's case is that Namaz has been offered on a piece of land at Village Ikona,
District Sambhal, which he claims to be his private property. He alleges that the respondent
authorities are restraining such prayers. The petitioner asserts ownership over the land on the basis
of a registered gift deed dated 16.06.2023, and contends that the restraint violates his fundamental
rights under Articles 19, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution, as persons professing Islam are
entitled to offer Namaz without interference.

4. It is further alleged that such interference is arbitrary and is being carried out in collusion
with certain social elements, thereby obstructing the petitioner and other persons from offering
prayers. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the coordinate benches of this Court in
Munazir Khan v. State of U.P. & Others (Writ-C No. 5996 of 2026), Pastor Selvakumar Samu v.
State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 32058 of 2024, decided on 19.03.2025), Marantha Full Gospel
Ministries v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 1097 of 2026, decided on 27.01.2026) and Emmanuel
Grace Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 1080 of 2026, decided on 27.01.2026) to
contend that prayers can be conducted on private premises without requiring prior permission.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits, on the basis of written instructions, that
the land in question, being Khata No. 613, Gata No. 629, is recorded as Abadi land falling under
Category Shreni-6(2), i.e. land meant for public use, and that the petitioner has no ownership rights
over the same. The said gift deed dated 16.06.2023 allegedly executed by one Deen Mohammad in
favour of the petitioner, in respect of an area of 82.80 sq. meters, does not disclose any Gata
number, Khata number or identifiable revenue particulars, and is based only on vague boundary
descriptions. It therefore cannot confer any legal title upon him.

6. It is also brought on record that as per the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Namaz has traditionally been offered at the said location only on the occasion of Eid, and that no
restriction has been imposed on such established practice. The petitioner, however, is attempting to
introduce regular large scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the
village.

7. It is further brought on record that Village Ikona has a mixed population and has
remained peaceful for decades. Even the petitioner, in his own representation, has acknowledged
that villagers have been living harmoniously for more than 50 years. The photographs annexed with
4 All. Aseen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1349
the petition themselves demonstrate that Namaz has been offered only on specific traditional
occasions such as Eid.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has further relied upon several Government Orders dated
16.07.2024, 16.08.2024, 24.03.2025 and 11.02.2026, all of which consistently mandate that while
religious practices are to be respected, no new traditions or non-traditional activities shall be
permitted and that established practices must be adhered to in order to maintain public order.

9. It has further been submitted that even with respect to Hindu festivals like Holika Dahan,
it has been specifically directed that such ceremonies shall be conducted only at traditional sites
and not in public thoroughfares or new locations, thereby reinforcing the consistent administrative
policy of preservation of established traditions.

10. Having considered the submissions, the issue that arises for consideration is:

 "Whether, and to what extent, the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 extend to
the conduct of congregational religious activities, whether on public land or private premises"

11. Freedom, in a constitutional society, is always accompanied by responsibility towards
others. The Constitution protects the right to practice religion, but it also makes it clear that this
right is subject to public order, morality and health. It is not an unlimited right. It cannot be
exercised in a way that affects others or disturbs the normal functioning of public life. As is often
said, one person?s freedom ends where it begins to affect someone else.

12. When it comes to public land, the position is straightforward. Public land is meant for
everyone and is controlled by law. No individual can claim a right to use it for regular religious
gatherings. Such use affects movement, access and safety, and in appropriate situations, communal
equilibrium; it must therefore be regulated. It is the State?s obligation to ensure equal access, civic
order and non-discriminatory administration.

13. The law in this regard is well settled. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005, the Supreme
Court recognized protection in matters of religion, but made it equally clear that the right is not
dissociated from the constitutional limitations expressly written into Article 25. In M. Ismail
Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360, it was observed that Namaz may be offered
anywhere, which means that no particular place can be claimed as a matter of right.

14. In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, the Supreme Court
emphasised the importance of maintaining social harmony, civic peace and the rule of law and
reminded that courts must be mindful of the practical impact of their decisions. Where a claim to
hold religious congregation on public land has the potential to create social tension, the
constitutional court must ensure that the conditions necessary for peaceful coexistence are
maintained.
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. In this context, it must be recognised that existing lawful practices, long-regulated
arrangements, or permissions granted for limited or specific purposes may stand on their own
footing; but no new or unilateral claim can be founded merely on religion or personal preference.
The State is constitutionally entitled, and in appropriate cases duty bound, to prevent the use of
public land without lawful authority.

16. The position in respect of private property stands on a different footing. Private prayer,
family worship, and such limited devotional activity as remains genuinely internal to the premises
ordinarily fall within the protected domain of Articles 25 and 26. This protection, however, is
confined to activity that is truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive. It does not extend to
transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue.

17. Once the activity assumes such a congregational character, it is no longer merely a
matter of inward faith. It begins to produce external consequences: it may draw repeated
attendance, including persons beyond the immediate household, affect ingress and egress, create
traffic and parking concerns, alter the character of the locality, generate noise, require policing, and
in sensitive areas, create the possibility of inter-community tension. At that stage, the activity
assumes a public or quasi-public dimension. It is not that the private property loses all protection,
but that the use of such property, to that extent, no longer remains purely private for constitutional
purposes and becomes amenable to reasonable regulation.

18. This position is consistent with the decisions relied upon by the petitioner. In Munazir
Khan vs. State of U.P. & Others, Pastor Selvakumar Samu vs. State of U.P., Marantha Full
Gospel Ministries vs. State of U.P. and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P., the
Court protected bona fide prayer within private premises and held that such personal religious
exercise cannot be arbitrarily interfered with. However, those decisions cannot be read as laying
down that organized or regular congregational activity on private premises is wholly immune from
regulation. They recognise a limited protection, namely where prayer remains confined to a private,
non-disruptive setting. Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the
public domain, lawful regulation follows. These decisions do not confer a right to convert private
premises into an unregulated congregational space.

19. Further, the law does not require the authorities to wait for an actual disturbance to
occur. Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The
test is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. This approach is
consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all
religions and equal application of law. While the State must permit private worship, it is equally
bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises.
Maintaining this balance is essential to the working of Articles 25 and 26 in a constitutional system.

20. In light of the above discussion, the issue so framed stands answered in the following
terms:
4 All. Aseen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1351
 (i) Public land is meant for common use, and no individual or group can claim a right to
use it as an exclusive or recurring religious space; the State is bound to ensure equal access and
cannot permit preferential or exclusive use of such land.

 (ii) The right to practise religion is subject to public order, including access, movement
and peaceful living, and cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with these rights of others.

 (iii) Private property may be used for personal and limited religious activity so long as it
remains genuinely private, occasional and non-disruptive; however, once such use extends to
regular or organized congregational activity involving persons beyond a limited private sphere, it
falls outside the protected domain and may attract regulatory control.

 (iv) Where such activity in the private property becomes regular, organized or large in
scale, it may amount to a change in the nature of use of the premises and is subject to applicable
laws, including planning and local regulations.

 (v) The introduction or expansion of a religious use or practice not previously prevalent,
particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance, is not protected under Articles 25 and 26.
The State is not required to wait for actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures
where such activity is likely to affect public life.

21. Turning to the facts of the present case, the material on record does not support the
claim advanced by the petitioner. The pleadings in the writ petition are vague and lack material
particulars. No specific incident, date, time or identifiable act attributable to any authority has been
disclosed. The allegations of interference, threats and collusion with unnamed persons are general
in nature and are not supported by any material. Such pleadings do not meet the standard required
for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

22. On the basis of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the land in question
is recorded as public land. The claim of ownership rests entirely on a purported gift deed dated
16.06.2023, which does not contain basic land particulars such as Gata or Khata numbers and is
based only on vague boundary descriptions. Such a document does not establish any identifiable
title and cannot displace the revenue record.

23. Even otherwise, if the land is assumed to be private, the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief sought. The record shows that he is not protecting an existing practice, but seeking to
introduce regular congregational gatherings, including persons from within and outside the village.
It is admitted that Namaz was earlier offered only on specific occasions such as Eid. This
expansion beyond a limited private sphere falls outside the protected domain and is subject to
regulation.

24. In these circumstances, no enforceable legal right is made out. This Court cannot grant
relief on such a basis, particularly where the matter has implications for public order and social
harmony.
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 12447 of 2026

Bhullan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for diminution of land value and RoW corridor area
under the Government of India guidelines dated 15.10.2015 and 14.06.2024, despite the State of U.P. not
implementing the later guidelines ?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 38, 42(2), 67,
68, 76, 164, 176(2)(ii)(e): - Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed for quashing the impugned order,
whereby authority rejected the petitioners' claim for compensation - as well as seeking mandamus to award
compensation for tower base and RoW corridor as per Union guidelines - Petitioners, landowners in Shamli,
contended that towers and high tension lines diminished land value and compensation was denied despite
Ministry of Power guidelines of 2015 and 2024 - The authority rejected representation stating only 2015
guideline was implemented and 2024 guideline not adopted - Petitioners pleaded that valuable rights were
curtailed without acquisition - citing Kerala SEB v. Livisha. Respondents argued 2025 guideline applies only to
inter-State lines and objected that writ not maintainable - Court finds that, State cannot selectively implement
Union guidelines, recognizes diminution of land value as compensable, and directs compensation as per GO
dated 14.06.2024 - held, impugned order quashed, writ petition allowed - respondents to pay compensation
within four weeks.
(Para - 31, 35, 36, 38)
WP Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 792.
LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Electricity Act, 2003 - Telegraph Act, 1885.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition, Right of Way (RoW), Transmission Line, Tower Base Compensation, Diminution of Land Value,
Ministry of Power Guidelines, Public Interest Project, Compensation, Circle Rate, Market Value, Allowed.
CASE ARISING FROM
Cancellation of petitioner's highest bid in e-auction dated 17.02.2026 for mining lease in Arazi no. 12MI,
Village Chakalathia, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur.