The Allahabad high court on Friday sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government on a petition challenging the demolition of a mosque on the Collectorate premises in Saharanpur. The court also stayed the recovery of ₹6.41 crore in damages imposed on the mosque management and fixed October as the next date of hearing.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order on a writ petition filed by advocate Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad, and issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and Abdul Hamid, manager/maulavi of the mosque directing them to file responses within three weeks.
The city magistrate, acting under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, had ordered the eviction and demolition of the 315-square-metre mosque and imposed damages of ₹6.41 crore on its management. The district court dismissed the appeal against the order on September 2, following which the mosque was demolished on September 5.
Senior advocate Ashish Kumar Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the eviction order was passed without properly determining the ownership of the land. He said revenue records showed the names of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan and that the mosque had also been entered in the waqf register.
Additional advocate general Manish Goel opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had taken contradictory position by claiming the property was both owned by the ‘zamindars’ (landlords) as well as dedicated to the waqf. He said there was no document establishing when the alleged waqf dedication was made and that the Sunni Central Waqf Board had not been made a party to the proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}Additional advocate general Manish Goel opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had taken contradictory position by claiming the property was both owned by the ‘zamindars’ (landlords) as well as dedicated to the waqf. He said there was no document establishing when the alleged waqf dedication was made and that the Sunni Central Waqf Board had not been made a party to the proceedings.
{{/usCountry}}Goel said the property was recorded as Collectorate/Kutchery in government records and that the authorities had treated the entries showing private ownership as fraudulent. He also said no document establishing ownership had been produced before the authorities.
(With PTI inputs)
The petitioner, however, claimed that earlier records carried the names of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan and that a 1956 entry mentioned Wahid Khan, Collectorate/Kutchery and Yaqub Khan. He also contended that the registration of the mosque in the waqf register had not been considered by the lower courts.