Allahabad HC Stays Damages of Rs 6.41 Crore in Saharanpur Mosque Eviction Case, Issues Notice to State
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has stayed recovery of over Rs 6.41 crore in damages imposed under the Public Premises Act after a Saharanpur mosque was evicted and demolished within days of the eviction order.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has admitted a petition challenging an eviction order passed against a mosque in Saharanpur and stayed the recovery of damages exceeding Rs 6.41 crore pending further hearing. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, sitting singly in Court No. 9, took up the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution after both the City Magistrate and the District Judge had ruled against the petitioner. The case turns on whether proceedings under Section 5 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were lawfully initiated, and whether the demolition of the mosque — carried out within three days of the eviction order — was conducted hastily before any appellate remedy could take effect.
The Eviction Order and the Demolished Mosque
The dispute centres on land in Saharanpur over which the petitioner, Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad, claims his community has been in possession for more than a hundred years, using it as a mosque. Proceedings were initiated by the State under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971, which empowers authorities to evict unauthorised occupants from public premises.
On 16 July 2026, the City Magistrate, Saharanpur passed an order of eviction and simultaneously imposed damages of Rs 6,41,65,500. The petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2026 before the District Judge, Saharanpur, which was dismissed on 2 September 2026.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, placed before the court a specific grievance: the State moved to demolish the mosque within three days of the eviction order, before the petitioner could pursue any effective appellate remedy. This speed, he contended, foreclosed any practical relief at the appellate stage.
Waqf Status and the Competing Claims
The petitioner's case rests on the assertion that the original owners of the land were Yaqub Khan and Wahid Khan, and that the land has been used as waqf by its users. In the written statement filed before the City Magistrate, the petitioner objected to the eviction on the basis that the mosque had been in existence on the land and that the community's possession spans over a century.
Senior Counsel argued that both courts below failed to consider these facts and recorded findings against the petitioner without adequately engaging with the question of waqf character and long-standing possession.
The State's position, presented by Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, was markedly different. He submitted that the property stands recorded as Kutchery/Collectorate in revenue records, indicating it is public land. He pointed to a contradiction in the petitioner's written statement: on one hand the petitioner named Yaqub Khan and Wahid Khan as the original landlords, yet neither the date of dedication as waqf nor any waqf deed was placed on record. The original landlords themselves, he noted, never came before the courts below to claim the property.
The Additional Advocate General further submitted that a post-office is operating on the land in dispute. The eviction proceeding, he said, was initiated on the specific ground that after taking rooms on rent, a mosque was constructed and namaz was being offered — conduct the State treats as unauthorised occupation of public premises.
Why the Court Found the Matter Requires Consideration
Justice Agarwal recorded that “matter requires consideration of this Court” and issued notice to respondent no. 2. The bench directed the State to file a counter affidavit within three weeks and gave the petitioner one week thereafter to file a rejoinder.
The court did not rule on the merits at this stage. However, the interim stay on the realisation of damages signals that the court found a prima facie case warranting preservation of the petitioner's position until the matter is heard on the counter affidavit. The damages figure — Rs 6,41,65,500 — was imposed alongside the eviction order by the City Magistrate, making its recovery an immediate financial threat independent of the now-demolished structure.
The question of whether the demolition occurred with undue haste, and whether the courts below properly addressed the claimed waqf nature of the property, will require examination once the State files its response.
Order
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, by order dated 11 September 2026, stayed the realisation of damages of Rs 6,41,65,500 imposed by the City Magistrate, Saharanpur vide order dated 16 July 2026, until the next date of listing. Notice was issued to respondent no. 2. The State was directed to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, with one week granted to the petitioner for a rejoinder. The matter is listed as fresh on 12 October 2026.