Delhi HC issues notice to masjid committee over challenge to MCD’s anti-encroahment drive

Delhi High Court issues notice to MCD over encroachment removal from land near a mosque, as managing committee claims ownership under Waqf Act.

New Delhi

The Delhi High Court scheduled the next hearing for April. (Representative photo/HT Archive)

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice in a petition filed by the managing committee of Masjid Syed Elahi, challenging the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) decision to remove alleged encroachments from land adjoining the 100-year-old mosque and kabristan located at Ramlila Maidan, near Delhi’s Turkman Gate.

The mosque was recently in the news as the Red Fort blast accused, Dr Umar un-Nabi, had visited it before the explosion on November 10.

On December 22, 2025, the MCD issued notice declaring that all structures beyond 0.195 acres were liable to be demolished—as part of an anti-encroachment drive—concluding that no documentary evidence had been produced to establish ownership or lawful possession of the land by the managing committee or the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB).

To be sure, the 0.195-acre houses the mosque.

The move came after the high court, on November 12, 2025, gave the MCD and Public Works Department (PWD) three months to clear 38,940 sq ft of encroachments at Ramlila Ground near Turkman Gate. This included portions of a road, a footpath, a banquet hall, a car park and a private diagnostics centre.

The order was based on a joint survey conducted in October 2025 by the MCD, DDA, PWD, L&DO, the Union ministry of urban development, revenue department, and police. The joint survey report recorded 2,512 sq ft of encroachment on PWD land and 36,248 sq ft on MCD land. It also noted that a mosque and kabristan occupied 7,343 sq ft of land belonging to the L&DO, an area on which the court issued no direction.

Following the notice, MCD officials visited the site to mark the encroached area on Sunday, but faced resistance from locals, prompting increased police deployment.

A bench led by justice Amit Bansal observed that the matter required consideration, directed the MCD and the L&DO to file their responses, and listed the case for April 22.

In its petition, the managing committee contended that the property in question was being used by it and lease rent was paid to the DWB. It contended that the land was a notified waqf property governed by the Waqf Act, and that the Waqf Tribunal, therefore, had exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the property. It further asserted that the November 12 order was passed without hearing the managing committee or the Delhi Waqf Board, and that neither was included in the joint survey conducted in October.

The committee’s counsel, Kirti Uppal, submitted during the hearing that there was no objection to the removal of encroachments from the land, including the banquet hall and the clinic, and noted that the committee’s sole grievance related to the graveyard functioning on the property.

The L&DO, represented by additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma, contended that there was no infirmity in the order, and the same has been passed bona fide in terms of the November 12 order, and counsel for DWB was duly heard before passing the aforesaid order.

MCD’s counsel, Sanjay Poddar, submitted that 0.195 acres (934 sq yards) of land had been leased on February 15, 1940, and that no action was being proposed with respect to the land covered under the lease.