A part of a 185-year-old mosque in Uttar Pradesh was demolished by local authorities on Tuesday. Reason: authorities claim the structure was encroaching on the Banda-Bahraich Highway.

The incident, reported from Fatehpur district, comes days after the Supreme Court underlined that bulldozer action is unacceptable under the rule of law.

The district administration claims that the portion demolished was illegal and had come up in the last two-three years, citing satellite and historical images of the mosque’s site.

The Public Works Department (PWD) claims it had given a notice to remove some parts of the mosque due to their “illegal construction” on August 17.

The mosque officials, claims the PWD, were given a month’s time and they promised to follow suit. However, they decided to challenge the order in the high court, said the PWD.

“About 20 metres of Noori Masjid, which was obstructing the widening of Banda-Bahraich Highway No. 13, was demolished by a bulldozer on Tuesday in the presence of officials and now its debris is being removed,” Lalauli police station in-charge Inspector Vrindavan Rai told news agency PTI.

The chief of the Noori Masjid Management Committee has disputed the PWD’s claim.

“The Noorie Mosque in Lalauli was built in 1839 and the road here was constructed in 1956, yet the PWD is calling some parts of the mosque illegal,” said Mohammad Moin Khan, Mutawalli (chief) of Noori Masjid Management Committee.

Additional District Magistrate Avinash Tripathi said notices were issued to 139 entities in August, including the mosque’s management, to remove encroachments and other illegal constructions.

“Repair work on the road and construction work for a drain have been proposed along the route because of which encroachments have been removed after serving notice,” Mr Tripathi said.

He also stressed that the district administration duly informed the mosque management in the past.

“The management earlier removed shops attached to it. Now removal of a portion became inevitable because it was constructed later. The rest of the mosque has not been demolished. It is evident from satellite and historical images that the construction was done two-three years ago. Only the encroached part has been removed,” Mr Tripathi said.

Police and Rapid Action Force personnel were deployed in every nook and corner of the area to maintain law and order.
 

Muzaffarnagar:

In western Uttar Pradesh, the district of Muzaffarnagar is at the centre of a property dispute that stretches back to the tumultuous years of the Partition. The property in question, a mosque and four shops located near the Muzaffarnagar railway station has recently been declared “enemy property” following an investigation. The ownership of the land traces its roots to the family of Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, with claims that it was illegally occupied after the Partition in 1947.

The dispute has triggered debates over the legitimacy of its ownership, with one faction claiming the land belongs to the Waqf Board, while another argues it is a product of unlawful encroachment. 

Historical Backdrop

The property dispute can be traced back to 1918 when the land was first occupied by Rustam Ali Khan, the father of Liaquat Ali Khan. Liaquat Ali Khan was born in Haryana’s Karnal and was the second son of Rustam Ali Khan and his wife Mahmoodah Begum, the daughter of Nawab Quaher Ali Khan UP’s Saharanpur.

He had a deep connection with Muzaffarnagar, where he campaigned successfully for the United Provinces Legislative Council in 1926. His association with the region was not just political but also familial, as his extended family lived in the area for decades.

In 1932, Liaquat Ali Khan was elected Deputy President of the United Provinces Legislative Council and continued his political career until his elevation to the Central Legislative Assembly in 1940. The Khan family’s political influence in the region was substantial, and their holdings in Muzaffarnagar were significant, spanning several properties, including the one in question. However, after the Partition of India in 1947, the fate of these properties changed dramatically.

Liaquat Ali Khan’s migration to Pakistan turned his Indian properties into “enemy properties,” a designation under Indian law that applies to the assets of individuals who left the country for Pakistan after the Partition. In the years following his migration, his family’s assets in India became a point of contention.

Liaquat Ali Khan was shot twice in the chest while addressing a 100,000-strong rally in Rawalpindi in 1951. His assassin, Said Akbar Khan, was fatally shot by Pakistani security forces seconds later.

The Mosque And Shops

The controversy surrounding the land escalated when a mosque was constructed on the property in question, situated directly across from the Muzaffarnagar railway station. Sanjay Arora, the convener of a group called the Rashtriya Hindu Shakti Sangathan, brought attention to the construction in 2023, alleging that the mosque and shops were built illegally on enemy property. Mr Arora argued that the mosque, which he claimed was “constructed like a hotel”, did not adhere to the legal regulations governing construction in the area, as it had not received approval from the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority (MDA).

“There are no documents for this property with the Waqf Board,” Mr Arora claimed. “When an individual has moved to Pakistan, their land is either illegal property or enemy property.” 

Mr Arora, without providing any evidence to back his claim, made further allegations that the property and the mosque that it hosts are a “threat to national security”. 

His complaint to the district administration led to a multi-tiered investigation by local authorities, which included representatives from the Muzaffarnagar District Magistrate’s Office, the Revenue Department, and the Municipal Corporation. The investigation was escalated when it was referred to the Enemy Property Office in Delhi, where a team was dispatched to survey the land.

The exact worth of the property has not been calculated yet. 

The Enemy Property Act

The Enemy Property Act, 1968, governs the appropriation of properties in India belonging to Pakistani nationals. Introduced in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan War of 1965, the Act transfers ownership of such properties to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, a designated government authority.

According to the Enemy Property Agency, the land in question had indeed been declared enemy property. The property was found to be under the ownership of Rustam Ali Khan, Liaquat Ali Khan’s father, who had left India for Pakistan after the Partition. 

In response to these findings, the government moved to issue a legal notice to the occupants of the land, directing them to vacate the premises. 

The Counter-Claim

Despite the declaration of the land as enemy property, there remains a counter-narrative. Those occupying the mosque and the shops argue that the land was legally waqf (a form of Islamic endowment), which means it was donated for religious purposes. According to the individuals on the Muslim side of the dispute, the property had been registered with the Waqf Board, and they have submitted documentation to that effect, including a letter from 1937 to bolster their claims.

One of the key figures defending the status of the property as waqf is Mohammad Athar, a local businessman who runs a shop on the land. He insists that the property belonged to Rustam Ali Khan, who had endowed it to the Waqf. Mr Athar dismissed the claim that the land belongs to Liaquat Ali Khan and claimed that political motivations and misinformation are driving the entire dispute.

“The land did not belong to Liaquat Ali Khan but his father Rustam Ali Khan who donated the land to waqf,” Mr Athar claimed. “The mosque at this property has existed before the partition of the country. We have presented all the evidence to prove this, and we hope the government rethinks its decision and deliberates on the matter once again as the livelihoods of several families depend on it.”

The claimants argue that the mosque, which has existed for decades, was not built in violation of any law and that the rent collected from the shops is legitimate. They maintain that the designation of the land as enemy property is an incorrect claim based on misinterpretation of historical records. 

Legal Ramifications

The legal complexities surrounding the ownership of enemy property are not unique to Muzaffarnagar. Across India, several properties previously owned by individuals who migrated to Pakistan after the Partition have been caught in similar disputes.

In a landmark case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the property of Mohammed Amir Mohammed Khan, the erstwhile Raja of UP’s Mehmoodabad, was classified as enemy property. The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership of valuable properties in Sitapur and Lucknow, which were controlled by the state government. These properties were valued at no less than Rs 3,000 crore.

Sambhal, UP:

A father of four, who was the sole earning member of the family, was out to buy groceries when a bullet ripped into him during the violence that broke out during the survey of a Mughal-era mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal over the weekend. His family now says they fear for their lives as well. 

“He was going to take refined oil and ‘maida,’ when the violence broke out. He did not even know there was tension in the area. The police killed him,” Tasleem, brother of Naeem, told NDTV. Police officials have dismissed the claim.

Naeem (35) was a resident of Kot Garvi area and ran a sweetshop. He is survived by two sons and two daughters.

“We are very worried, no action has been taken till now, we ourselves are not safe here,” Naeem’s brother, wearing a cap and seated in a plastic chair, added.

Superintendent of Police (Sambhal) Krishnan Bishnoi said around 20-22 police personnel were injured in the violence.

“Police only used pellet guns. The autopsy report of the three dead says that they died because of gunshot wounds from a .315 bore firearm,” Mr Bishnoi said. 

Mohammed Ayan, 19, was also among three other people killed in the clashes.

“My mother woke him up and sent him to work at the hotel. When chaos erupted at the mosque, he was nearby. When he ran, a bullet pierced through his chest. I carried him,” Ayan’s brother, Kamil, told NDTV.

“Even after being shot, he was with me for 11 hours and he told me that the cops were firing,” said Kamil.

The brother also claimed that Ayan’s treatment was delayed at the hospital. 

“Even when I took my brother to the hospital, they first asked for Rs 500 and then gave him 2 injections. He was bleeding a lot. I said please help him, but people in the hospital said police action would be taken first,” he claimed.

The first survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid was undertaken on November 19. A second survey four days later, which included taking photos and video of the mosque’s features, triggered the violence.

On Sunday, a large group of people gathered near the 17th-century mosque and started shouting slogans as the survey team resumed its work. They then clashed with security personnel, torched vehicles, and threw stones.

Samajwadi Party MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq, accused of inciting violence during the mosque survey, has denied the allegations. Mr Barq stated that the charges against him were baseless, asserting that he was in Bengaluru attending a meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board at the time of the violence.

New Delhi:

Over 30 years since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, another mosque in Uttar Pradesh finds itself at the epicentre of a contentious debate. A court-ordered survey of the 16th-century Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era mosque, in Moradabad’s Sambhal, led to multiple deaths, arrests and a riot that brought the city to a grinding halt.

The Jama Masjid in Sambhal was built during the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babur, between 1526 and 1530, and was one of the three major mosques constructed during his brief but impactful rule. The other two are the mosque at Panipat and the now-demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

According to historical reports, the mosque’s construction was supervised by Hindu Beg Qucin, one of Babur’s trusted lieutenants, in December 1526. Its architectural style mirrors the era’s evolving Mughal design, featuring a large square hall with a central dome. Persian inscriptions within the mosque confirm its Mughal origins, though some historians claim remnants of pre-existing Hindu temples were integrated into its construction.

Sambhal itself holds religious significance for Hindus, as the purported birthplace of Kalki, the tenth and final avatar of Vishnu. According to Hindu scriptures, Kalki is destined to appear in Sambhal to end the Kalyug (age of darkness). Earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of the grand Kalki Dham, calling for “Ram Rashtra” and claiming that “Kalki’s avatar will determine the course of thousands of years.”

Sambhal’s spiritual history – with different faiths overlapping each other in history – forms the crux of the current legal and ideological battle.

The Legal Dispute

The controversy erupted when a petition was filed in Sambhal by advocate Vishnu Shanker Jain and others. Mr Jain, also known for his involvement in the Gyanvapi Mosque and Krishna Janmabhoomi disputes, claimed that the Jama Masjid was built on the ruins of a temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. The petition alleged that the mosque was constructed after the destruction of the temple during Babur’s invasion in 1526-27. The petitioners argue that historical texts such as “Baburnamah” and “Ain-e-Akbari” document the destruction of the temple by Babur.

The plea claims that the temple was built by the Hindu mythological figure Vishwakarma at the beginning of the universe. Babur’s forces allegedly destroyed the temple partially and converted it into a mosque to establish Islamic supremacy. The petition further criticises the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for failing to take control of the site, as it is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The petitioners demand unrestricted access to the mosque for Hindus, claiming their right to worship was being unlawfully denied.

The Survey And Its Fallout

In response to the petition, the court ordered a survey of the mosque on November 19, 2024. Advocate Commissioner Ramesh Raghav, along with the district administration and police, carried out the survey the same day. This rapid action drew criticism from several quarters, with claims of judicial overreach and procedural irregularities.

The Muslim community, including the Jama Masjid management committee, strongly opposed the survey. They pointed to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the status of any religious site as it existed on August 15, 1947. Ziaur Rehman Barq, the Samajwadi Party MP from Sambhal, condemned the move as an attempt to disrupt communal harmony.

On November 24 tensions boiled over as a second survey was scheduled. Protests erupted near the mosque as hundreds of locals, fearing a repeat of the Babri Masjid demolition, gathered to resist the survey. The demonstrations quickly turned violent, with protesters throwing stones and setting vehicles on fire.

Security personnel responded with tear gas and baton charges to control the mob. Four people were killed, including three men in their 20s. Over 30 police personnel were injured in the clashes.

Several vehicles were torched, and property around the mosque was damaged. Internet services were suspended, prohibitory orders were imposed, and schools were shut for a day to prevent further escalation. The Moradabad Police said that those responsible for the violence would face stringent legal action, including charges under the National Security Act (NSA).

Advocate Vishnu Shanker Jain stated that the ASI must take control of the site to conduct a thorough investigation into its origins. Ziaur Rehman Barq urged the community to remain calm while challenging the survey legally. Former Chief Minister Mayawati criticised the government’s inaction in preventing communal tensions.

Critics argue that allowing such cases undermines the The 1991 Places of Worship Act, which aims to maintain the religious status quo post-Independence.