Saharanpur mosque demolition: Allahabad HC seeks UP govt's reply, stays ₹6.41 crore recovery damages — what's the case?

The Allahabad High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh government on Friday to file a reply within three weeks on a writ petition against the eviction and demolition of a mosque situated in the collectorate premises at Saharanpur.

According to Live Law, the high court also stayed the recovery of ₹6.41 crore fine in damages imposed by the city magistrate, Saharanpur, on the mosque management.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal fixed October 12 for the next date of hearing.

"Till the next date of listing, the realisation of damages imposed by the City Magistrate, Saharanpur vide order dated 16.7.2026 shall remain stayed," the court's order stated, as per the report.

What's the case?

The order was passed on the petition, advocate Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad, that challenged a direction of Saharanpur's city magistrate on July 16, as well as the order of a district judge on September 2, news agency PTI reported.

The petition challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, in relation to the mosque.

In the petition, the Uttar Pradesh government through Saharanpur district magistrate, and Abdul Hamid, manager/maulavi of the mosque, have been made respondents.

On July 16, the city magistrate directed the demolition of the 315-square-metre mosque on the collectorate premises and imposed a fine of ₹6.41 crore on its management. The order was passed under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972.

An appeal was filed against the magistrate's order in the district court. However, the district judge dismissed the appeal on September 2.

Following this, the authorities demolished the mosque on September 5.

‘Well found beneath demolished mosque’

A well, approximately 20 feet deep and 1.5 meters wide, with iron sheets, was found during debris removal following the demolition.

After the discovery, Sadar Sub-Divisional Magistrate Subodh Kumar said, according to PTI, that an ASI team would examine the well to ascertain its age and historical background.

The demolition triggered a political controversy, with opposition parties, including the Samajwadi Party and the Congress, criticising the BJP-led state government over the action.

Vikas Tyagi, a former Bajrang Dal convenor and the complainant in the matter, claimed that a temple might have existed at the site before the mosque was built.

However, Congress MP Imran Masood said the well was part of the mosque and was used in earlier times to meet the requirement of water for wuzu, or ablution before prayers.

"The ASI officials measured the depth of the well after placing a ladder inside and examined its interior. They also carried out photography and videography and collected samples of soil and brick remnants from inside the well as part of their investigation," Kumar said.

Who are the owners of the property?

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Ashish Kumar Singh submitted that the order of eviction was passed without ascertaining the title, though the name of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan was recorded on the property.

Before the high court, Singh for the petitioner submitted that the state had acted hastily in demolishing the mosque and that the demolition occurred within three days of the eviction order.

It was submitted that the original owners of the land were Yaqub Khan and Wahid Khan and that the land was being used as waqf by the users of the mosque. The petitioner contended that the courts below had not considered these aspects when recording their findings against him, Live Law reported.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goel opposed the petition, saying that the petitioner himself had pleaded that the mosque is a waqf property and the Sunni Central board has not been made parties.

Goel claimed that the stand of the petitioner is contrary — as on one hand, he pleaded that the property is of the zamindar, and on the other hand, he said that the property is of waqf, but there is nothing about dedication to waqf, he argued.

Goel said that the property is recorded in the name of the collectorate katchery. It was alleged in the petition that in the documents, the property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Wahid khan. However, in 1956, it was recorded in the name of Wahid Khan, collectorate katchery and one Yaqub Khan.

He submitted that this was not considered by authorities and passed an order impugned by saying that the entries are fraudulent and further that no document of ownership was produced.

It was also submitted that the appellate court wrongly held that the land was under the ownership of the federal government in the British period and thereafter it vested in the state.

It was also submitted that the mosque is registered in the waqf register but this was not given consideration.