The Allahabad High Court on Friday stayed the recovery of ₹6.41 crore in damages from the committee of a mosque demolished at the Saharanpur Collectorate complex, pending further legal proceedings. The court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government and local authorities to respond to a petition challenging the eviction and demolition of the structure. The order was passed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Tanveer Ahmad, who contested the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

According to the petitioner, he had raised objections to the eviction order and submitted a written statement asserting that the mosque existed on the disputed land and that he had been in possession of it for over a century. He claimed that despite this, the Saharanpur City Magistrate ordered his eviction on July 16, 2026, and imposed damages of ₹6.41 crore. The appeal before the District Judge, Saharanpur, was dismissed on September 2, 2026, leading to the mosque's demolition on September 5, 2026.

The petitioner further argued that the land was originally owned by Yaqub Khan and Wahid Khan, who had dedicated it as waqf property for worship. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, representing the state, countered that official records list the disputed property as belonging to the Collectorate. He noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s case, as the written statement named Yaqub Khan and Wahid Khan as landlords but did not specify when the land was supposedly dedicated as waqf or provide any waqf deed as evidence. The state also stated that the named landlords had never approached the courts to claim the property.

The state further argued that a post office operates on the disputed land, and the eviction proceedings were initiated because the mosque was constructed after taking rooms on rent. The court, stating that the matter requires further consideration, issued a notice to the state and directed it to file a counter affidavit within three weeks. The court also ordered that the recovery of damages imposed by the City Magistrate on July 16, 2026, remain stayed until the next hearing on October 12, 2026.

Senior advocate Ashish Kumar Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the eviction order was passed without properly determining the land’s ownership. He cited revenue records showing the names of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan and noted that the mosque was also entered in the waqf register. However, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had taken a contradictory position by claiming the property was both owned by the landlords and dedicated to the waqf. He emphasized that no document establishing the alleged waqf dedication had been produced and that the Sunni Central Waqf Board had not been made a party to the proceedings.

The petitioner, however, claimed that earlier records carried the names of Wahid Khan and Yaqub Khan and that a 1956 entry mentioned Wahid Khan, Collectorate/Kutchery, and Yaqub Khan. He also contended that the registration of the mosque in the waqf register had not been considered by the lower courts. The dispute over the land’s ownership and its status as waqf property remains unresolved, with the court awaiting further submissions from the state and the petitioner.