The Bombay High Court has affirmed that the right to worship at a registered Public Trust Dargah is a fundamental civil right that cannot be curtailed by private lease agreements. This judgment reinforces the principle that religious access to public trust property supersedes contractual arrangements between trustees and lessees, even where such arrangements purport to limit worship to specific hours or days.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the Dargah of Sayyed Khwaja Moinudin Chisty, located at Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (West), Mumbai. The Dargah was constructed by Jivanji Pestonji Goregamwala on a portion of land he owned, and he declared it as his private property in his 1956 Will. However, in 1953, the Deputy Charity Commissioner declared the Dargah a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, recognizing the Muslim community’s longstanding right to offer prayers there. In 1991, the Charity Commissioner modified the extent of the Public Trust property, limiting it to the physical structure of the Dargah measuring 24’ x 20’, while excluding the surrounding land. This order attained finality and was not challenged.
Key Facts
- On 28.03.1931, Jivanji Pestonji Goregamwala purchased land bearing Survey No. 5A, Hissa No.1 (now CTS Nos. 16A, 16A/1, and 16B), totaling 1066 sq. yards.
- He constructed the Dargah structure measuring 24’ x 20’ on a portion of this land.
- On 21.01.1953, the Deputy Charity Commissioner declared the Dargah a Public Trust, noting that the Muslim community had been using it for worship without interruption.
- On 26.08.1991, the Charity Commissioner confirmed the Dargah as a Public Trust but reduced the trust property to only the 24’ x 20’ structure, excluding the surrounding land.
- On 16.04.1992, the Trustees leased 442.5 sq. mtrs of land (CTS 16A and 16A/1) to Noshir Maneckji Elavia, who built Elavia Manor.
- On 16.11.2011, the Trustees leased 150 sq. mtrs (CTS 16A and 16A/1) to Defendant No.4 for 999 years at Rs.1/year.
- On 20.10.2012, the Trustees executed a second lease deed in favor of Defendant No.4 for 151.34 sq. mtrs, which included the Dargah structure, at Rs.1/year.
- Clause 3(f) of the 20.10.2012 lease deed restricted access to the Dargah to Thursdays between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.
- On 18.12.2014, Defendant Nos. 1 - 3 filed Suit No. 3015 of 2014 seeking enforcement of the lease terms.
- On 17.01.2015, the parties filed Consent Terms in Suit No. 3015 of 2014, agreeing to the Thursday-only access restriction.
- On 04.02.2015, Defendant No.4 locked the Dargah gate, preventing worshippers from entering.
- On 12.08.2015, the Plaintiffs (devotees) filed the present Suit No. 2298 of 2015 seeking injunctive relief.
- On 05.05.2016, the City Civil Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the Plaintiffs.
- On 15.06.2018, the City Civil Court passed the impugned order granting permanent injunctions under prayers (a) to (e).
Procedural History
- 28.03.1931: Purchase of land by Jivanji Pestonji Goregamwala
- 11.02.1956: Execution of Will by Goregamwala
- 21.01.1953: Deputy Charity Commissioner declares Dargah a Public Trust
- 26.08.1991: Charity Commissioner confirms Public Trust status but limits property to 24’ x 20’ structure
- 16.04.1992: First lease of land to Noshir Maneckji Elavia
- 16.11.2011: Lease of 150 sq. mtrs to Defendant No.4
- 20.10.2012: Second lease of 151.34 sq. mtrs (including Dargah) to Defendant No.4
- 18.12.2014: Suit No. 3015 of 2014 filed by Trustees against Defendant No.4
- 17.01.2015: Consent Terms filed in Suit No. 3015 of 2014
- 04.02.2015: Dargah gate locked by Defendant No.4
- 12.08.2015: Suit No. 2298 of 2015 filed by worshippers (Plaintiffs)
- 05.05.2016: Ad-interim injunction granted by City Civil Court
- 29.06.2016: Appeal from ad-interim order dismissed by Bombay HC
- 15.06.2018: City Civil Court grants final injunction under Notice of Motion No. 2165 of 2016
- 19.12.2025: Reserved for judgment
- 09.06.2026: Judgment pronounced by Bombay HC
The Parties' Positions
- Appellant (Defendant No.4): Argued that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi, as they are neither owners nor trustees; that the 20.10.2012 lease is valid; and that the Consent Terms are binding between the parties. Claimed willingness to allow access on all days as a voluntary gesture.
- Respondents (Plaintiffs/Devotees): Contended that they are lifelong worshippers with a civil right to worship under Nar Hari Shastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee and Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar. Argued that the lease deed is void under Section 36A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, as it was executed without Charity Commissioner’s sanction. Alleged collusion and fraud in obtaining the Consent Terms.
Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs sought:
- Stay of the Consent Terms dated 17.01.2015
- Permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.4 from restricting access to the Dargah
- Declaration that Defendant No.4 is not the lessee of the Dargah structure
- Injunction against sale, transfer, or encumbrance of the Dargah property
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether worshippers, who are neither owners nor trustees of a registered Public Trust Dargah, have a legal right to institute a civil suit to enforce unrestricted access to the Dargah, and whether a private lease agreement can lawfully restrict religious access to a structure declared as Public Trust property.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mr. Vishal Kanade argued that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi as they are not parties to the lease or the Consent Terms. He relied on Ajanta LLP v. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha to assert that only parties to a contract can challenge its terms. He contended that the Public Trust property is limited to the 24’ x 20’ structure, and the surrounding land is privately owned. He offered to voluntarily permit all-day access, suggesting the injunction was unnecessary.
For the Respondent
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar argued that the right to worship is a civil right recognized by the Supreme Court in Nar Hari Shastri and Deoki Nandan. He emphasized that the Dargah is a registered Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and Section 36A prohibits leasing without Charity Commissioner’s sanction. He contended the lease deed dated 20.10.2012 is void ab initio, and the Consent Terms were procured by fraud and collusion, rendering them non-binding on third parties under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the binding nature of the Charity Commissioner’s 1991 order, which confirmed the Dargah structure (24’ x 20’) as Public Trust property. It held that the Plaintiffs, as devotees with a longstanding tradition of worship, possess an independent civil right to access the Dargah, irrespective of ownership or tenancy.
"The Dargah has been declared a Public Trust... and there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are worshippers and devotees of the Dargah... Defendant No.4 has no right to block access of the worshippers and devotees to the Dargah."
The Court rejected the Appellant’s reliance on Ajanta LLP, distinguishing it as a commercial contract dispute, whereas this case involves a fundamental civil right protected by public trust law. The Court held that while the lease over the surrounding land may be valid, it cannot override the statutory and constitutional protection of religious access to the Dargah structure.
The Court further found that the Consent Terms, though binding between the Trustees and Defendant No.4, could not extinguish the rights of third-party worshippers. The Court emphasized that Section 36A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, imposes a statutory embargo on alienation of trust property, rendering any lease of the Dargah structure void without prior approval.
The Court declined to interfere with the lease over the non-trust land but strictly limited the injunction to the Dargah structure itself, recognizing the distinction between private property and public trust property.
The Verdict
The Appellant’s appeal was partially allowed. The Bombay High Court modified the impugned order dated 15.06.2018 to restrict relief to the Dargah structure (24’ x 20’). Defendant No.4 is permanently restrained from:
- Restricting access to the Dargah on any day or at any time
- Representing himself as the lessee of the Dargah structure
- Selling, transferring, alienating, or encumbering the Dargah structure All other claims regarding the surrounding leased land were dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Religious Access Supersedes Private Contracts
- Practitioners must argue that any lease or agreement restricting access to a registered Public Trust religious site is void to the extent it infringes on worshippers’ civil rights
- Courts will prioritize statutory protections under the Bombay Public Trusts Act over private contractual terms
- Consent decrees obtained without impleading worshippers may be set aside as fraudulent under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC
Locus Standi of Worshippers Is Established
- Devotees with a longstanding, bona fide practice of worship at a Public Trust site have standing to sue, even without title or trusteeship
- This applies to all faiths - Hindu temples, Muslim Dargahs, Sikh Gurdwaras, and Christian churches registered as Public Trusts
- Evidence of generational worship (e.g., family records, community testimony) strengthens locus standi
Statutory Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Any lease, sale, or transfer of Public Trust property requires prior sanction from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36A
- Failure to obtain sanction renders the transaction void ab initio
- Courts will not enforce such transactions even if parties claim mutual consent
Documentation Is Critical
- Maintain copies of Charity Commissioner’s orders, Public Trust registration certificates, and historical worship records
- Challenge any lease deed that includes trust property without sanction
- File suits under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC if consent decrees are obtained by suppression of facts
