Here Is Why The Ayodhya Mosque Plan Has Been Rejected by Authorities

The Ayodhya Development Authority (ADA) has formally rejected the plan for constructing a mosque in Dhannipur village,

The Ayodhya Development Authority (ADA) has formally rejected the plan for constructing a mosque in Dhannipur village, Ayodhya, citing the absence of crucial no-objection certificates (NOCs) from multiple government departments. This development was revealed through an RTI query filed by journalist Om Prakash Singh and has reignited the debate surrounding the mosque project, which was part of the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict in the historic Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.

As per the judgment, 5 acres of land were allotted to the state Sunni Central Waqf Board in Dhannipur village, Sohawal tehsil, about 25 km from Ayodhya town, to compensate the Muslim side. While the land was officially transferred in early 2020, progress has remained stalled due to unresolved objections and structural deficiencies in the plan.

The Reason Behind the ADA’s Rejection

In its letter dated September 16, 2025, the ADA stated that the application filed by the mosque trust on June 23, 2021, was rejected because mandatory NOCs were missing. These clearances were required from critical departments such as Public Works, Pollution Control, Civil Aviation, Irrigation, Revenue, Municipal Corporation, and Fire Services.

While the trust had deposited ₹4,02,628 as application and scrutiny fees, the project could not be cleared. The most significant objection came from the fire department, which flagged the narrow approach road to the site. For a building of such scale a seven-story mosque with space for 2,000 people, along with a hospital and community facilities the road needed to be at least 12 metres wide. However, at the site, the road is only six metres wide, narrowing further to just four metres at the main approach point.

Mosque Trust’s Concerns and Delays

Mosque trust secretary Athar Husain admitted that the fire department had raised objections during a site inspection, but he claimed ignorance regarding objections from other departments.

The project’s fate has been uncertain since the beginning. In November 2022, Husain had acknowledged that 14 of the required 15 NOCs were already issued, except for the fire department’s clearance due to the unresolved issue of the narrow approach road. Until this bottleneck is cleared, the mosque plan cannot move forward.

Ambitious Plans Beyond the Mosque

Despite the delays, the mosque trust had ambitious plans for the Dhannipur site. Apart from the mosque, which was designed to rise seven stories and host 2,000 worshippers, the blueprint also included a 300-bed multi-speciality hospital to provide free treatment to patients. Additionally, the project proposed a community kitchen capable of feeding over 1,000 people daily and a research centre, but the technical hurdles, particularly regarding safety norms and road access, have kept the project from materializing.

Donations and Community Support

Interestingly, the mosque project has also seen support from unexpected quarters. When the Supreme Court mandated the land allotment, the Sunni Central Waqf Board initially hesitated to accept it but eventually relented four months after the verdict. What caught many people’s attention was that the very first donation for the mosque came from a Hindu, Rohit Srivastava, who contributed ₹21,000.

By November 2022, almost 40 per cent of the donations collected by the mosque trust came from Hindus, while Muslims accounted for about 30 per cent. This unusual donor pattern highlighted a sense of shared responsibility and interest from different communities, despite the political sensitivities surrounding the issue.

The project, born out of a landmark verdict meant to settle one of India’s longest-standing disputes, continues to be delayed by structural deficiencies. Until the approach road issue and related objections are addressed, the construction of the mosque and its associated facilities will not materialize. The case highlights the delicate balance between faith, legality, and practicality in projects of such symbolic magnitude.

Exit mobile version