Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI: In a major relief for the 40-year-old Faizyab Masjid and Madrasa in Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin East, facing demolition, the Delhi High Court has ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allocate an alternate plot of land within four weeks.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Shamshad Ali and others, accepted their plea for an alternate site. The court asked the DDA to provide a plot of the same size as close to the present location as possible.
However, the relief comes with a condition as the court directed the mosque committee to vacate the current premises within one week, potentially paving the way for demolition action by the DDA. The bench noted that the appellants have agreed to “voluntarily move the Holy Book from the subject property within a week,” after which the authorities may proceed with the removal or demolition of the “unauthorized structure.”
Further listing the matter on September 3, the division bench has given four weeks to the appellants of the masjid for submitting a compilation of documents to be added to the official record of the case.
This latest ruling overturns a previous order by Justice Amit Sharma of the single judge vacation bench, who had on June 12 dismissed the mosque committee’s plea challenging the demolition decision and granted them one month to vacate the premises.
The case of the Faizyab Masjid and Madrasa has been marked by several twists and turns. Established in 1972 and registered with the Delhi Waqf Board as a Waqf property in 1989, the religious institution has found itself caught in a complex legal battle involving land ownership claims and religious rights.
The controversy first came to light in March-April when local police officials verbally informed the mosque’s administrators about impending demolition plans. This prompted caretaker Deen Mohammad to approach the court, filing an initial petition through Advocate Fuzail Ayubi. In response, Justice Sachin Datta had issued notices to the DDA and the Delhi Religious Committee, granting interim protection against potential demolition.
However, in a surprising turn of events during a hearing in May, Deen Mohammad, through his counsel Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, requested to withdraw the very petition that had secured protection for the structures. This unexpected move led to Justice Amit Sharma accepting the withdrawal and ordering the premises to be vacated within four weeks.
The current LPA, filed by Shamshad Ali and others through Advocates Sitab Ali Chaudhary and Gufran Ali, seeks the allotment of an alternate plot of land measuring 1150 square yards at the institutional rate for religious purposes. This plot would replace the current land situated at Khasra No.17, Behlolpur Khadar, Sarai Kale Khan, Hazrat Nizamuddin.
Shedding light on this development, JIH Assistant Secretary Inamurrahman, who is in close touch with the matter, revealed that following the withdrawal of the petition in May, the Delhi administration had sent bulldozers to demolish the structures on July 12. However, he and other activists managed to convince the local SHO that the matter was still sub judice in the high court, temporarily halting the demolition. They also sent representations to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the Delhi government in this regard.
On the controversial withdrawal of the petition by caretaker Deen Mohammad, Inamurrahman stated that according to the Waqf Act, a caretaker has no authority to hand over a Waqf property to any other entity. He said the caretaker’s role is limited to managing and administering the property, making the decision to withdraw the petition outside their purview.
According to him, other petitions related to this Masjid and Madrasa are pending in the High Court and the court is expected to hear one of the petitions this week. Inamurrahman informed that the mosque and madrasa were established on private land donated by the grandfather of the present caretaker.
According to Inamurrahman, the DDA, citing land acquisition proceedings, has sought the removal of the structures, labelling them as unauthorized constructions on public land. However, expressing surprise, the JIH official questioned the DDA’s decision to label the mosque and madrasa as encroachment and unauthorized despite providing documentary evidence, including land records, no-objection certificates from the Waqf Board for electricity connections, and a detailed timeline of the property’s continuous existence and recognition by authorities over the decades. He added that even the Waqf Board advocate submitted all relevant documents in the court, clearly showing that this property is duly registered in the Waqf Board.
“Despite all this, the DDA brazenly labelling it as unauthorized and encroached land is very deplorable,” he stated.
Praising the court, Inamurrahman urged the High Court to direct the DDA to immediately allocate an alternate plot close to the present mosque and madrasa before vacating the existing premises. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that worshippers and students who regularly use the facilities for prayers and religious education are not affected, noting that there is no other mosque in the area, and this lone mosque serves the needs of the locality.
The petitioners contend in the court that the property is not an encroachment on public land and that the Religious Committee, formed to deal with unauthorized religious structures, does not have the power to make recommendations regarding Waqf properties under the Waqf Act, 1995. They have also raised concerns about the Delhi Religious Committee’s proceedings, pointing out that the same official who heads the committee also serves as the administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board, which currently lacks independent members.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of the Faizyab Masjid and Madrasa hangs in the balance. The court’s recent decision to order an alternate plot while simultaneously directing the vacation of the current premises has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious issue.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2024, when the court will review the progress made in finding an alternate site and assess any further developments in this complex and contentious case.