Rajasthan High Court dismisses madrasa, masjid pleas against eviction notices in Indo-Pak border belt

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that principles of natural justice may be curtailed where structures within the 0–50 kilometre belt along the Indo-Pak international border face eviction on national security grounds, dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by madrasas, masjids and a dargah across Jaisalmer, Barmer and Bikaner.

Justice Sameer Jain, hearing the lead matter Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026) along with more than twenty connected petitions, held that once the State places cogent material, including intelligence inputs, to justify action in the interest of national security, the rigours of audi alteram partem may be suitably tailored rather than applied in their strictest amplitude.

The Court observed: “Liberty thrives in the shadow of law, but the sovereignty of a nation survives on the vigilance of its guardians.”

The batch of petitions was filed by the managing committees, office-bearers and caretakers of several madrasas, masjids and a dargah situated in the border belt, challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued under Section 90-A and Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and Sections 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The notices alleged unauthorised construction on government and agricultural land, without permission or lawful conversion of land use.

According to the State, the notices followed a declaration by the Union Home Minister on Jun 14, 2026 that structures within 15 kilometres — subsequently extended to 50 kilometres — of the Indo-Pak border would be liable to vacation, eviction or demolition on national security grounds, traceable to a Gazette notification dated Oct 11, 2021 issued under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, enhancing the BSF’s territorial jurisdiction up to 50 kilometres from the international border. The Court, in its findings, placed on record its appreciation for this notification as a bona fide exercise of statutory power in the interest of national security. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that show-cause notices had been issued in respect of approximately 180 properties across the belt.

Senior Advocate Vikas Balia, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the notices were arbitrary and issued in a predetermined manner, in breach of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1, and In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3210 — including prior notice of at least fifteen days, an opportunity of hearing, survey and demarcation, videography, and reasoned orders before any demolition. It was argued that Section 90-A of the Act of 1956 contemplated a regularisation mechanism, and that resort to coercive eviction without first considering regularisation was arbitrary and disproportionate. Service of notices by chaspa, and mutually inconsistent stands taken by the State on the question of national security, were also assailed.

The Advocate General, the Additional Solicitor General and the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to maintainability. It was contended that the petitioners lacked locus standi in the absence of authorisation letters or society resolutions establishing their nexus with the institutions, that the disputed questions of title and possession could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, and that the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1954 provided a complete statutory hierarchy of remedies before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue. It was submitted that show-cause notices had been issued and an opportunity of hearing afforded, but the petitioners had chosen not to appear, and that no permission had ever been obtained under Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954, for establishing the structures.

Relying on Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 13 SCC 401, the Court held that the State must demonstrate, through cogent material, that non-disclosure is warranted in the interest of national security, and that a reasonable, prudent person standard governs judicial review of such claims. The Court reproduced the following extract from the judgment:

“The Court cannot second-guess the judgment of the State that the purpose identified would violate India’s national security. It is the executive wing and not the judicial wing that has the knowledge of India’s geo-political relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India’s national security.”

Applying this standard, the Court found that the show-cause notices did not themselves direct demolition but merely called upon the petitioners to appear and explain their position, that no coercive action had in fact been taken pursuant to any of the notices, and that the apprehension of imminent demolition was speculative. It also rejected the submission that the action carried a ‘communal colour’, observing that notices had been issued across the board wherever unauthorised structures were found within the sensitive belt, irrespective of community.

The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioners, noting that Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., 2026 INSC 140, concerned encroachments on forest land, while In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures concerned properties belonging to accused persons, and neither could be placed on the same footing as constructions in the vicinity of an international border. It instead relied on Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327, holding that writ petitions against mere show-cause notices are not ordinarily maintainable, and on Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374, for the proposition that natural justice may yield to national security.

Holding the petitions not maintainable for want of resort to an efficacious alternate remedy and in view of disputed questions of fact, the Court dismissed the batch with no order as to costs, disposing of all pending and stay applications. Before parting, however, it directed that a committee comprising the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and a representative of the Border Security Force be constituted to examine cases involving sensitive border properties on an individual basis, empowering the committee to order eviction, dispossession, demolition or any other appropriate course based on available material and intelligence inputs — clarifying that natural justice would not be wholly dispensed with, but suitably tailored to the exigencies of national security.

Title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026 (with more than twenty connected petitions)

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:30648]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tahir Hakim, Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit, Mr. Iqbal Khan, Mr. Shahbaz Khan, Mr. Mohd. Riyaz, Mr. Abdul Kadir, Mr. C.S. Kotwani, Mr. M.A. Siddiqui and others

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat; Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. B.L. Bhati, Additional Advocate General