The apex court cites proper land acquisition and compensation, sparking anger among the Muslim community over perceived insensitivity towards religious sites
NEW DELHI/UJJAIN — The Supreme Court has upheld the demolition of the 200-year-old Takiya Masjid in Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, dismissing a petition filed by 13 local residents who had been offering prayers at the mosque. The court’s decision on Friday has deeply disappointed members of the local Muslim community, who allege that the mosque was demolished to expand the parking lot of the Mahakal Temple.
The petitioners argued that the mosque, which was registered with the Waqf Board in 1985, had been in continuous use as a religious site and was part of the community’s spiritual heritage. The demolition, carried out by the Ujjain administration in January 2025, followed prior notices that controversially declared the mosque illegal even before its removal.
“The demolition of a 200-year-old mosque to expand a parking lot is unacceptable. Our right to worship in our own mosque cannot be dismissed lightly,” said senior lawyer M R Shamshad, representing the Muslim residents.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the acquisition process was completed in accordance with law and compensation was duly paid to the affected parties. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision upholding the demolition.
“The high court decision was based on facts and legal procedures. Compensation has been awarded, and the acquisition process was in compliance with law,” the Supreme Court stated.
When challenged on claims that compensation was given to the wrong recipients, the court noted that separate legal remedies exist for such disputes, and previous petitions related to the matter had been withdrawn.
Local Muslims argued that the demolition violates several laws, including the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Waqf Act, 1995, and the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. They claimed that the process was marred by irregularities and that compensation for illegal occupants was mismanaged.
“Even if compensation was paid, the fact remains that our place of worship was destroyed. Telling people to pray at home or elsewhere is not a solution,” Shamshad argued before the Supreme Court.
The dismissal of the petition has left the community angry and disheartened, with many feeling that religious sentiments were overlooked in favour of urban development projects.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, both single and double benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had rejected the demand to reconstruct the mosque. Petitioners had argued that demolishing a mosque for the convenience of expanding a Hindu temple’s parking lot violated constitutional and statutory protections for religious sites.
“The Takiya Masjid was part of our community’s history. Losing it is not just a legal issue; it is a blow to our identity and faith,” said local resident Abdul Rahman.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court indicated that worshippers could pray at home or at other locations, effectively rejecting any claim for reconstruction. While the court emphasised the legality of the acquisition and compensation process, Muslim residents perceive this as a disregard for their religious rights and heritage.
“We understand the court has cited compensation, but no amount of money can replace a centuries-old mosque where generations prayed,” said community leader Syed Qasim Rasool.
The Takiya Masjid case highlights broader concerns among minorities regarding protection of religious sites, legal processes surrounding land acquisition, and the balance between development and community rights.
