Petitions have already been filed in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the demolition notices issued to places of worship in the vicinity of Rajasthan border districts. The case came to light after the Central Government had decided to demolish suspected encroachments located in the vicinity of the international border. The High Court has directed the copies of the petitions to be forwarded to the Additional Advocate General (AAG), which represents the interests of the state government, and June 29 was set as the date of hearing of all these cases.

The Petitioner is the Pir Mohammad Jilani Dargah Committee located at Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. It states that the Dargah in question is almost 200 years old and attracts many visitors daily. An Urs festival takes place annually and for years together the district administration had sanctioned it.

The petition further states that the Dargah is located close to a graveyard and Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution on October 30, 2021, to provide three bighas of land to the Dargah.

The petitioners stated that a notice issued on June 12, 2026, was affixed to the Dargah premises on June 17, asking why the structure should not be removed. They allege that the guidelines and procedures laid down by the Supreme Court regarding demolition actions were not followed when issuing the notice.

The petition also mentions that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had announced the removal of illegal constructions within a 15-kilometer radius of the international border during a high-level security review meeting held in Bikaner on May 27, 2026. Subsequently, media reports indicated that the scope of this action was being extended to a 50-kilometer radius. The petitioners claim that similar notices have also been issued to numerous mosques and madrasas situated on agricultural and government land in Jaisalmer, Barmer, Sri Ganganagar, Phalodi, and other border areas. Separate petitions challenging these notices have also been filed in the High Court.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the state government sought time to file its response. Granting the petitioners the liberty to respond to the notices, the court scheduled the next hearing for June 29.