MATWAL CHAND Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article-226 of the Constitution wherein the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the opposite parties to refrain from interfering with the further progress of the building by the petitioner of a temple. The facts upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner can be shortly stated. The petitioner is a Sikh who, together with a number of other members of his community, migrated to India from what is now West Punjab at the time of the partition. These persons were provided with accommodation in a mohalla in the city of Budaun which had been predominantly a Muslim locality. In 1952 the petitioner, in his capacity as Secretary of the "Punjabis Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Budaun" purchased a vacant plot of land for the purpose of constructing a temple, reading room and a 'dharamshala'. On 4-8-1952, he applied under Section 178, U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, for permission to erect these buildings on the land which he had purchased, and on 5-9-1952, sanction to do so was given to him by the Executive Officer on behalf of the Municipal Board. Work on the construction of the temple was begun, and it is said that about Rs. 20,000/- has already been spent.

(2.) Immediately to the west of the plot of land purchased by the petitioner is a mosque which the petitioner says was, at the time he purchased the land, partly in ruins and not in use. The construction of the temple in close proximity to the mosque became a matter of concern to the other Mohammedan inhabitants of Budaun, and on 13-11-1652, the District Magistrate wrote to the President of the Municipal Board a letter in which he expressed the view that the existence of a temple adjacent to the mosque was not desirable from the point of view of law and order, and enquired whether this aspect of the matter had been considered by the Municipal Board. Presumably as a result of this letter a notice was, on 14-11-1952, served by the Board on the petitioner informing him that the sanction had been revoked. That letter has not been produced before us, but according to the petitioner it was stated therein that the sanction had been granted under a mistake as the proposed construction contravened the provisions of Building Bye-law No. 7 which is in the following terms : "7. No mosque, temple, church or other sacred or religious building shall be erected (a) unless the frontage is at least 15 feet from the centre of the street on which it abuts and (b) unless it is situated at a distance of not less than 100 yards from any other sacred or religious building or another sect or religion."

(3.) On behalf of the Municipal Board a lengthy affidavit has been filed a large part of which is hearsay. The case for the Board is that the Executive Officer of the Board sanctioned the plans submitted by the petitioner without applying his mind to the matter, that the plans submitted by the petitioner were not in accordance with Building Bye-laws Nos. 2 and 3, and that the sanction of the Board had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. These however are not matters which we can examine in a petition under Article 226, nor in the view which we take is it necessary to do so.