The Delhi High Court on Tuesday was orally assured that no immediate action would be taken against a mosque situated within the Jaipur Polo Ground of the Race Course area in New Delhi until the next hearing on October 29, as the Union government sought time to obtain instructions on a worshipper's plea apprehending demolition of the religious structure.

Justice Anish Dayal was hearing a petition filed by a worshipper seeking protection against demolition of the mosque, restoration of unobstructed access for worshippers and enforcement of the Delhi Waqf Board's statutory obligations.

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Sufyan Siddiqui, alleged that an officer had orally asked the mosque's imam to vacate the premises within three to four days, stating that demolition would be carried out. However, he clarified that no formal demolition notice had been issued.

The Union's counsel, Ashish Dixit, told the Court that electricity and water connections to the mosque had been disconnected to avoid a safety risk to people accessing the structure while demolition work was underway in the surrounding area.

The Court recorded that the Union would obtain formal instructions on the issue before the next hearing. During the hearing, Justice Dayal observed that the Court assumed the authorities would not take any action in the next couple of days, while the Union's counsel indicated that he did not have specific instructions to make a formal statement.

The Court also sought a formal response from the Land and Development Office (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs) and the Delhi's Waqf Board.

Court Questions Basis Of Apprehension Of Demolition

Siddiqui submitted that the mosque was a government-gazette-notified Waqf property dating back to 1977 and also enjoyed Grade-II heritage recognition under a notification issued in 2009. He argued that the structure could not be demolished without following the statutory procedure applicable to heritage buildings.

Justice Dayal, however, asked the petitioner's counsel to explain the legal protection claimed for the mosque, particularly in view of earlier court proceedings concerning a wider demolition and clearance exercise in the area.

"If an area is sought to be cleared under the orders of the court and fructified, then whatever comes within it has to be cleared, except for the fact that it is under some legal protection" the Court observed.

The judge said the Court would have to examine the basis of the government's action and whether the proposed demolition had the sanction of an earlier judicial order.

"The issue is what is the genesis of action of demolition being taken by the government on this particular piece of land. That's point number one. Point number two, does it have an imprimatur of any court?" Justice Dayal asked.

The Court also identified the question of whether the mosque enjoyed any specific legal protection as a separate issue requiring consideration.

Siddiqui maintained that the mosque had never been the subject matter of the earlier proceedings concerning demolition in the area.

He submitted that its Grade-II heritage recognition required the authorities to obtain permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee before undertaking alterations, let alone demolition. He relied on the notification dated October 1, 2009, and the relevant provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi.

The judge also sought to understand the Delhi Waqf Board's position, noting that the mosque had been notified as Waqf property.

When Siddiqui argued that the Waqf Board was not the owner of the property, Justice Dayal observed that the mosque was, in any event, a notified Waqf property and asked what the Board had to say about the matter.

Centre Says Utilities Disconnected Due To Safety Concerns

Appearing for the Union government, Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit accepted notice on behalf of the concerned respondents and sought time to obtain instructions.

Dixit stated that the electricity and water connections to the mosque had been disconnected to avoid a safety risk to people accessing it during the ongoing demolition exercise.

The Court was also informed that a temple was situated within the same premises. Dixit said he would obtain formal instructions on the issue before the next hearing.

Siddiqui pressed for restoration of access to the mosque, stating that worshippers had been prevented from entering it since October 21.

The Union's counsel responded that demolition work was underway in the surrounding area and that the presence of heavy machinery, including JCB equipment, made access unsafe.

The Court sought clarity on the question of ingress and egress.

During the hearing, the judge indicated that the Court expected the authorities not to take precipitate action before the next hearing.

However, when the petitioner's counsel sought an assurance to be formally recorded, the Union's counsel said he lacked specific instructions on the issue.

Justice Dayal observed that the Court did not want to put counsel in a difficult position and asked him either to obtain instructions or have the concerned officer present.

The matter was listed for October 29.

Waqf Board Says Representation Pending Before Authorities

Additional Standing Counsel Farhat Jahan Rahmani, appearing for the Delhi Waqf Board, informed the Court that the Board had already submitted a representation to the Land and Development Office (LNDO) and other authorities on October 19. The representation had not yet been decided.

The Court also took note of a separate representation submitted by the petitioner on October 22 to the Waqf Board and the concerned authorities.

The petitioner argued that the Board had failed to take adequate steps to protect the mosque and ensure access for worshippers.

Earlier Litigation Concerning Jaipur Polo Ground Area

During the hearing, the Court referred to earlier proceedings concerning the disconnection of utilities and the clearance of settlements in the wider Jaipur Polo Ground area.

Siddiqui acknowledged that a separate petition filed by the mosque's imam concerning the disconnection of electricity and water had been dismissed by a coordinate Bench on October 15.

The Court also discussed litigation concerning three settlements in the area, where orders relating to the vacation of dwelling units and rehabilitation had been upheld by a Division Bench and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner's counsel maintained that the mosque had not been a party to the proceedings concerning the demolition exercise and that its heritage status and notification as Waqf property raised separate legal questions.