Allahabad High Court Upholds Mosque Survey Order in Sambhal Temple-Mosque Dispute
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a petition by the management committee of Jami Masjid, Sambhal, challenging a lower court’s decision to allow a survey of the mosque premises. The survey was ordered following a lawsuit claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Hindu temple.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal delivered the judgment, upholding the November 19, 2024, order of the Sambhal Civil Judge (Junior Division), which appointed an advocate commissioner to carry out the survey. The court also lifted its earlier interim stay, allowing the trial court proceedings to resume.
In a 45-page verdict, the High Court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims were not prima facie barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates the preservation of their religious character as of August 15, 1947.
“This case does not involve the conversion or alteration of the religious character of any place of worship,” the court noted. “The plaintiffs have merely sought access to a protected monument, declared as such in 1920 under Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).”
The plaintiffs argue that the mosque stands on the site of the ancient Hari Har Temple, dedicated to Kalki, the final avatar of Lord Vishnu, which they claim was partially demolished in 1526 under the orders of Mughal emperor Babar and converted into a mosque.
The mosque committee had approached the High Court, arguing that the survey was ordered hastily and without notice. They pointed out that the advocate commissioner’s inspection was carried out on the same day the order was issued—November 19—and continued on November 24, 2024.
Meanwhile, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted a counter-affidavit during the High Court proceedings, confirming that the structure in question is a Centrally Protected Monument. The ASI asserted that the mosque is not officially recorded as a religious site and that there is no archaeological, historical, or revenue documentation referring to it as a “Shahi Masjid.”
The ASI further clarified that under Sections 4 and 5 of the AMASR Act, the Central Government and ASI have the authority to declare and manage protected monuments, thereby nullifying unauthorized ownership or religious claims over such sites.
The trial court proceedings had been stayed by the Supreme Court last year, pending the High Court’s ruling on the mosque committee’s petition. Now, with the High Court dismissing the challenge, the case will proceed in the trial court.
This ruling marks a significant development in the sensitive dispute surrounding the religious history and legal status of the Sambhal site.
