On 23 September 2025, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Mancha Masjid Trust against a notice by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) asking it to vacate part of the 400-year-old Mancha Masjid in Saraspur for a road-widening project. The notice dated July 25 directed the trust to hand over a portion of the premises to facilitate road widening under Town Planning Scheme No. 11 (Bapunagar).
The Trust argued before the Gujarat High Court that the demolition of any part of the ancient mosque, a registered Waqf property, would damage a religious and cultural heritage site, and also infringe upon the fundamental right to worship. It further questioned the legality of the process, pointing out that the notices were issued, and hearings were conducted by the AMC’s Deputy Estate Officer rather than the Municipal Commissioner, which was contrary to provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The Trust claimed its objections filed during a hearing in January were summarily rejected by the AMC Standing Committee without due consideration and non-application of mind.
The Trust further argued that the AMC had failed to comply with both the GPMC Act, 1949 and the Waqf Act, 1995. The Trust also stated that the Mancha Masjid has been recorded in revenue documents and has long been registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the Waqf Act, 1995, which safeguard properties meant for religious use.
The State countered that the AMC was acting within its powers and in the “larger public interest.” It was submitted that the Standing Committee had, on 19 September 2024, authorised the Municipal Commissioner to take steps for road widening under the GPMC Act, 1949. The State argued that the proposed road line was of vital importance as it would regulate traffic leading to Kalupur Railway Station and a junction of the Ahmedabad Metro Rail. The High Court was told that while individual inconvenience was regrettable, it must give way to planned urban growth and public convenience. The State also contended that the Waqf Act provisions were not applicable when special powers of the Municipal Commissioner were invoked.
Justice Mauna Bhatt, while upholding the AMC’s action, observed that the statutory procedure under the GPMC Act had been followed and that there was no error in the AMC’s decision. The High Court rejected both the plea to quash the notice and the Trust’s request to stay its implementation for four weeks.
The Trust filed an appeal against the High Court Order before the Division Bench, however, the Single Judge's Order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed on 3 October 2025.
On 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court order facilitating the road-widening project. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that only a portion of the vacant land and an adjoining platform were to be cleared, while the mosque’s main structure would remain untouched.
With the dismissal of appeals, the AMC can move ahead with the road-widening project.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Refusal to give up land for the project
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Private
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Religious/Sacred/Cultural value
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
Yes
When did it end?
October 2025
Why did the conflict end?
The High Court rejected the arguments of the Mansa Masjid Trust, and held that the provisions of the Waqf Act are not applicable in this case. The court noted that the AMC Commissioner has taken this decision by exercising special powers granted to him under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The court agreed that structural changes are necessary because road-widening project is in larger public interest. The Trust filed an appeal against the order but the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal on 3 October 2025. With the dismissal of the appeal, the AMC can move ahead with the road-widening project.
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
Yes
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Gujarat High Court
Case Number
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12923 of 2025
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
