Saharanpur Mosque Demolition: Allahabad HC Stays Rs 6.41 Crore Penalty On Management, Seeks UP Govt's Reply

The Allahabad High Court has stayed the recovery of a Rs 6.41 crore penalty imposed on the management of a mosque that was demolished inside the Saharanpur collectorate premises earlier this month.

The bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, hearing a petition challenging the demolition and the orders preceding it, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file its response within three weeks. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 12.

The petition was filed by advocate Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad, challenging the July 16 order of the Saharanpur city magistrate as well as the September 2 decision of the district judge, which had upheld the magistrate's order.

Why was the mosque demolished?

The dispute concerns a 315-square-metre mosque situated within the Saharanpur collectorate complex. On July 16, the city magistrate, acting under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, ordered its demolition and imposed a penalty of Rs 6.41 crore on the mosque management.

The mosque management appealed against the order before the district court. However, the appeal was dismissed on September 2. The administration subsequently carried out the demolition on September 5.

The mosque management then approached the high court, questioning both the legality of the demolition and the proceedings through which the property was treated as government land.

What did the mosque management argue?

Senior advocate Ashish Kumar Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued before the high court that the authorities could not have ordered eviction without first deciding the ownership of the disputed property.

He submitted that revenue records relating to the land contained the names of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan. The petitioner also maintained that the mosque was entered in the waqf register, an aspect which, according to him, had not been properly considered by the authorities.

The petitioner's case, therefore, was that the nature and title of the property remained disputed and could not simply be determined through proceedings under the public premises law.

What did the Uttar Pradesh government say?

Additional Advocate General Manish Goel opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner's claim regarding ownership was inconsistent.

According to the State, the petitioner had at different stages described the property as zamindari property as well as waqf property. The State also pointed out that the Sunni Central Waqf Board had not been impleaded in the proceedings.

Goel submitted that the disputed land was recorded as belonging to the collectorate katchery. He referred to revenue records which initially contained the name of Wahid Khan and subsequently, in 1956, reflected the names of Wahid Khan, the collectorate katchery and Yaqub Khan.

The State further argued that the relevant entries were considered fraudulent by the authorities and that the petitioner had not produced documents establishing ownership over the land.

It was also submitted that the appellate court had correctly concluded that the land was under the ownership of the federal government during the British period and subsequently vested in the State.

The Uttar Pradesh government, through the Saharanpur district magistrate, and Abdul Hamid, described as the mosque's manager/maulavi, have been made respondents in the high court proceedings.

Case Title: Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: September 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal