Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Eviction Notices to Religious Structures Near Pakistan Border; Directs Collector-SP-BSF Committee to Individually Assess National Security Threats
Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Interfere With Show-Cause Notices to Religious Structures Near Pakistan Border; Creates Collector-SP-BSF Mechanism for Individual Security Assessment
Facts
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dealt with a batch of writ petitions challenging eviction, vacation and show-cause notices concerning properties and constructions situated approximately within 50 kilometres of the Indo-Pakistan border. The notices were issued under statutory regimes including the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
The lead matter was S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026, Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The judgment was directed to apply mutatis mutandis to the connected petitions raising common questions of law.
The petitioners included persons and bodies operating Madrasas, Masjids/Mosques and Dargahs. According to the State, permanent structures had been raised on Government/agricultural land without requisite permission, authorization or lawful conversion. The structures were situated within the 0–50 km sensitive border belt, and the authorities also relied upon records, complaints and intelligence inputs indicating possible national-security concerns.
The petitioners claimed that several institutions had existed for decades. In the lead case, the Dargah was stated to have substantial religious and cultural significance, while a society managed its affairs and organised two annual Urs festivals with administrative permissions.
They approached the High Court apprehending eviction and demolition following notices issued by the authorities.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether writ petitions under Article 226 were maintainable against mere show-cause notices when statutory remedies were available.
- Whether eviction/demolition action concerning allegedly unauthorized religious structures within 50 km of the international border violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s general directions governing demolition of structures applied with equal rigour where national security and border sensitivity were involved.
- Whether disputed questions concerning title, ownership, possession, land use and authorization could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the impugned action was discriminatory or communally targeted against Muslim religious institutions.
- To what extent natural justice requirements could be modified when credible national-security considerations were involved.
- What institutional mechanism should determine whether individual properties actually posed a security concern.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the authorities had embarked upon a predetermined and arbitrary demolition exercise and had failed to follow the Supreme Court’s safeguards governing demolition.
They relied particularly upon Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures and argued that adequate show-cause notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing were mandatory before demolition or dispossession.
They further relied upon Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, contending that the statutory framework was not merely punitive but contemplated regularisation and conversion of land use in appropriate circumstances. Consequently, demolition or dispossession could not automatically be the first response to an allegedly unauthorized occupation.
The petitioners also challenged service of notices by “chaspa” or affixation, the short time afforded for responding, and the alleged inconsistencies between the notices and the respondents’ pleadings regarding national security.
Significantly, they accepted that natural justice may operate differently where genuine national-security considerations exist, but maintained that the authorities must at least possess a bona fide “reason to believe” based upon credible evidence, documents or intelligence inputs before taking coercive action.
They relied on Supreme Court authorities concerning demolitions and contended that demolition ordinarily required prior notice, sufficient response time, hearing, survey/demarcation, recorded reasons and an opportunity to pursue legal remedies.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State and Union authorities raised a preliminary objection to maintainability.
First, they argued that several petitioners had failed to establish their identity, authority or legal capacity to represent the institutions concerned through valid resolutions or authorization documents.
Second, the Rajasthan Colonization Act and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provided a complete hierarchy of statutory remedies, including proceedings before the competent authority, appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and further remedies before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, Article 226 jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely.
Third, the State maintained that show-cause notices and opportunities for personal hearing had been given but the petitioners had failed to participate. Where responsible persons were unavailable to receive notices, affixation was adopted as substituted service.
The respondents also relied on the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954, arguing that prior permission of the District Collector was mandatory for establishing religious structures and had not been obtained.
They further invoked the BSF Act, 1968 and the 2021 notification extending relevant BSF operational jurisdiction up to 50 kilometres from the international border, stressing the strategic sensitivity of the area.
Analysis of the Law
1. Writ Against Mere Show-Cause Notice
The High Court held that the petitions were premature.
The notices did not themselves direct demolition. They called upon the petitioners to appear, explain their position and produce relevant material.
The petitioners had consciously chosen not to participate and instead approached the High Court. Further, no coercive action had yet been taken. Therefore, the claimed apprehension of imminent demolition was considered speculative.
The Court relied upon Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327 for the proposition that High Courts ordinarily should not entertain Article 226 petitions against mere show-cause notices and the affected party should respond before the competent authority.
2. Disputed Questions of Title Cannot Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction
The notices raised serious disputes regarding:
- title;
- ownership;
- possession;
- nature of occupation;
- land use;
- authorization; and
- requisite statutory permissions.
The Court held that, without documentary substantiation, these were pure questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226.
The statutory revenue machinery was the appropriate forum for their determination.
3. Alternate Statutory Remedy
The Court found that the statutory framework provided a complete and efficacious remedy, including adjudication by the competent authority followed by appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue.
Accordingly, writ jurisdiction could not ordinarily be invoked without exhausting those remedies, particularly at the show-cause stage.
National Security and the 50-Km Border Belt
A central feature distinguishing these cases from ordinary demolition disputes was the location of the structures.
The Court considered the Ministry of Home Affairs notification dated 11 October 2021, issued under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, which enlarged/rationalised BSF jurisdiction and operational powers in border areas extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border.
The Court observed that the policy was intended to address infiltration, smuggling, trans-border crime and other activities prejudicial to national security.
Accordingly, administrative action concerning unauthorized constructions within this sensitive zone could not be viewed merely as an ordinary land or demolition dispute.
Natural Justice Can Be Tailored for National Security
The Court held that national security may justify modification of the ordinary rigours of natural justice.
It reasoned that the executive possesses institutional competence and access to geopolitical and intelligence material that courts ordinarily do not.
The Court nevertheless did not hold that natural justice disappears entirely. Instead, procedural safeguards could be tailored to the sensitivity and exigencies of the particular situation.
Ultimately, it held that strict traditional compliance was not invariably required in national-security matters where material existed justifying the action.
No Communal or Religious Discrimination Established
The Court expressly rejected the attempt to give the action a communal colour.
According to the material before it, notices had been issued across the board wherever unauthorized structures were found within the sensitive border belt and were not shown to have been confined to one religious community.
Therefore, the Court characterised the controversy as one concerning national security and regulatory compliance rather than religious discrimination.
Precedent Analysis
Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures
The petitioners strongly relied upon the Supreme Court’s demolition safeguards.
The High Court distinguished that precedent because it concerned bulldozer action against properties associated with criminals, convicts or accused persons.
Here, the Court considered the factual and legal setting fundamentally different because the structures were situated close to an international border and the authorities invoked national-security considerations.
Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.
The Court similarly distinguished Abdul Khalek, observing that it involved encroachers/property situated on Forest Department land and did not arise in the particular national-security setting presented by the border-zone cases.
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh
This authority supported the proposition that Article 226 jurisdiction ordinarily should not be exercised against a mere show-cause notice where the affected party has the opportunity to respond before the competent statutory authority.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service
The Court relied on this authority for the proposition that strict observance of ordinary natural-justice requirements may not always be possible where national security is directly implicated.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning rested on a combination of procedural and substantive considerations.
The petitioners had approached the Court against notices rather than final demolition orders. They had been afforded an opportunity to appear before the competent authorities but had not utilised it. No coercive action had yet been established.
Further, questions of title, lawful possession and authorization were disputed and required factual adjudication under the applicable revenue statutes.
The location of the properties within the sensitive 0–50 km Indo-Pak border belt added an important national-security dimension. The Court was unwilling to substitute its assessment for that of authorities possessing relevant intelligence and security expertise.
At the same time, the Court did not grant an unrestricted licence for demolition. Instead, it devised an institutional safeguard requiring an individual assessment by a multi-agency committee.
Collector-SP-BSF Committee
Despite dismissing the petitions, the Court issued significant supplementary directions.
It directed constitution of a Committee consisting of:
- the District Collector;
- the Superintendent of Police; and
- a representative of the Border Security Force for the concerned area.
The Committee must examine sensitive properties on an individual basis.
The Committee is required to base its decisions upon available material, evidence, intelligence inputs and other relevant considerations.
It may adopt procedures proportionate to the requirements of national security and may, where justified, order:
eviction, dispossession, demolition or any other appropriate action.
Importantly, the Court clarified that natural justice was not to be wholly dispensed with. Its application could instead be suitably tailored according to the sensitivity of the matter, alleged national-security threat and larger public interest.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court ultimately held the batch of writ petitions not maintainable.
It concluded that:
- the petitions challenged mere show-cause notices;
- the petitioners had statutory remedies available;
- disputed factual questions could not properly be resolved under Article 226;
- no imminent demolition had been established;
- the petitioners had failed to participate in opportunities already provided;
- the properties were situated in a strategically sensitive border zone; and
- natural justice could legitimately be tailored where genuine national-security considerations were involved.
The entire batch of writ petitions was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending and stay applications were disposed of.
However, future action concerning sensitive properties must be considered individually by the Collector-SP-BSF Committee, which is empowered to determine the appropriate course based on evidence, intelligence inputs and security considerations.
Case Details
Lead Case: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026
Judge: Justice Sameer Jain
Date: 13 July 2026
Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:30648
Result: Batch of writ petitions dismissed; Collector-SP-BSF Committee directed to individually examine sensitive properties and empowered to order eviction, dispossession or demolition where warranted by national-security considerations.
