On February 8, the Haldwani Municipal Company demolished a madrasa and a mosque within the city’s Banbhoolpura locality as a part of an anti-encroachment drive. The demolition led to a conflict between the locals and police officers, with movies of arson and stone-pelting pouring out on social media.
The clashes have been adopted by a curfew and shoot-on-sight orders. Uttarakhand director normal of police Abhinav Kumar informed The Indian Categorical that 5 individuals have died within the violence. ANI reported that 100 police personnel have been injured within the demolition drive.
Known as the Mariyam mosque and the Abdul Razzaq Zakariya madrasa, the constructions have been in-built 2002 in Banbhoolpura’s Firm Bagh locality. They have been taken care of by Abdul Malik and his spouse, Safia Malik.
Pankaj Upadhyay, Haldwani’s municipal commissioner, informed Scroll that the constructions have been constructed on nazul land – authorities land meant for public utilities. The company had given a discover for the demolition of the mosque and the madrasa to Abdul Malik on January 30, stated Upadhyay.
On February 6, Safia Malik moved the Uttarakhand Excessive Courtroom alleging that the land on which the mosque and madrasa have been constructed had been leased out in 1937 and bought to her household in 1994. A plea to resume the lease had been languishing earlier than the district administration since 2007, she added.
Malik sought interim aid towards the demolition of the spiritual constructions, particularly the madrasa, which was run for poor youngsters for “charitable functions”.
The court docket heard the matter on February 8.
Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami has claimed that the anti-encroachment drive had been sanctioned by a court docket route. Nainital District Justice of the Peace made the identical assertion.
However a duplicate of the order handed by Justice Pankaj Purohit exhibits that his bench solely famous the presence of the events and listed the matter for February 14.
The company didn’t look ahead to the following listening to. It went forward with the demolition.
Upadhyay stated that the demolition was not backed by a court docket order, however it could haven’t occurred if Malik bought a keep from the court docket. “They didn’t get a keep,” he added. “Our motion was carried below authorized procedures.”
Malik’s counsel, Ahrar Baig, challenged this assertion and alleged that the company had not adopted the due course of. “We weren’t served a discover or given time to current a case,” he stated.
The petition filed by Malik in Uttarakhand Excessive Courtroom, and the paperwork hooked up with it, give a glimpse into the sequence of occasions that led to the violence on February 8. It additionally gives a historical past of the Malik household’s face-off with the native authorities over the property since 2020, when a portion of the madrasa was first demolished by the company.
The demolition in Haldwani seems to be part of a bigger coverage of razing Islamic constructions that the BJP-led Uttarakhand authorities deems “unlawful”. In 2023, for example, the federal government claimed to have demolished greater than 300 shrines inside 90 days.
Within the case of the Haldwani madrasa, although, the BJP’s minority wing leaders had written to the chief minister warning that if a construction used to teach poor youngsters was demolished, “it could not ship a superb message to the minorities”.
The lease
The property on the centre of the Haldwani violence is unfold throughout six bighas. In her February 6 writ petition, Safia Malik informed the Excessive Courtroom that in 1937, the colonial authorities had leased it out to 1 Mohammad Yaseen “for agricultural functions”.
The lease appended within the petition states that it was legitimate for 10 years. Baig stated that the lease was renewed repeatedly.
Yaseen bought the plot to Akhtari Begum and Nabi Raza Khan, and in 1994, Akhtari Begum gifted it to Abdul Hameed Khan, Malik’s father, “by advantage of an oral reward”, or Hiba.
Connected to the petition is an affidavit by Gaus Raza Khan, Begum’s son, which corroborates this declare.
In 2006, Abdul Hameed Khan approached the Nainital administration to grant him freehold rights over the property. When he didn’t hear again until 2007, he filed a plea earlier than the Excessive Courtroom, which directed the district Justice of the Peace “to take resolution on the appliance…moved by the petitioners…in accordance with legislation expeditiously so far as doable”.
Baig informed Scroll that the lease had expired earlier than 2006 however couldn’t pinpoint a precise yr.
Malik’s plea provides that after that 2007 route, her father tried to get freehold rights however “couldn’t get the cooperation of the Nazul Division therefore couldn’t get the Nazul matter processed additional.”
Khan died in 2013 and his spouse handed away in 2018 – that’s when Malik turned the first caretaker of the mosque and the madrasa.
In December 2020, Malik claims, the Haldwani Municipal Company demolished a piece of the madrasa over proof of possession. Greater than every week after the partial demolition, she wrote to Haldwani mayor alleging “one-sided motion”.
In that letter, appended within the petition, she wrote that the Mariyam mosque and Abdul Razzaq Zakariya madrasa have been in-built 2002. “Arabic, Urdu, Hindu, English, maths and science are taught within the madrasa,” she added.
The latest episode
On January 27, claims Malik, the company tried to take “forcible possession” of the property. Three days later, it served a discover to her husband.
A replica of the discover, seen by Scroll, informed Abdul Malik that he was constructing a “namaz web site” and a “so-called madrasa” illegally on nazul land.
It stated that Abdul Malik should demolish and vacate the property by February 1 below Uttarakhand’s Nazul coverage of 2009 and 2021, and the Municipal Company Act, 1959, else the company would achieve this by pressure.
This discover doesn’t align with the due course of talked about within the state’s 2021 nazul coverage, which is specified by the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
Part 4 of the Act says that authorities should challenge an eviction discover calling upon all individuals involved to “present trigger why an order of eviction shouldn’t be made”. It should additionally give the occupants at the very least 10 days to current their case.
The Haldwani Municipal Company’s discover didn’t do both. In Malik’s phrases, it was “ unhealthy within the eyes of the legislation”. Baig added that the 1972 Act additionally permits occupants to attraction an eviction order earlier than a district choose.
Haldwani’s municipal commissioner Upadhyay, when requested in regards to the issues with the discover, stated: “They need to have replied to the discover. I didn’t hear from them after the discover.”
He added: “They’ve occupied authorities land and have been promoting it and being profitable. If they’ve issues with the discover, they need to search authorized aid from the court docket.”
On January 31, Malik made a illustration to the district Justice of the Peace, laying out the historical past of the property and requested for the demolition to be stayed till the district Justice of the Peace selected her father’s freehold plea from 2007. Within the petition, she claims {that a} copy of it was despatched to the company.
On February 2, Upadhyay wrote to the Nainital’s senior superintendent of police, requesting police presence throughout the demolition of the mosque and the madrasa on February 4.
BJP minority cell
The demolition scheduled for February 4 didn’t happen. Round 1.30 am, the mosque and madrasa have been sealed as a substitute.
The explanation for this was the sequence of representations made by spiritual and political leaders of Banbhoompura earlier than the Company.
This included seven members of the BJP, together with Zaheer Ansari, the vice-president of the state’s minority wing, and Ziyauddin Qureshi, the wing’s in-charge of the Nainital parliamentary constituency.
“Members of all events, together with the Congress, AAP and BJP went and met officers within the Municipal Company,” Qureshi informed Scroll. “Almost 70% of all land in Haldwani is nazul land. It doesn’t make sense to demolish this mosque and the madrasa.”
In a letter to Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami on February 3, marked to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leaders of the BJP minority wing careworn on the political – particularly electoral – penalties of the demolition.
“The madrasa is utilized by poor youngsters and the outdated supply prayers on the mosque. As office-bearers of the BJP minority wing, we are attempting very exhausting to make the minority group get together with our occasion,” stated the letter. “Retaining in thoughts the approaching elections and the curiosity of the occasion, these constructions shouldn’t be demolished.”
The letter warned that if the constructions have been razed, “it could not ship a superb message to the minorities”.
Qureshi informed Scroll that he was puzzled by the haste with which the administration executed the demolition. “I feel it was carried out retaining in thoughts the upcoming elections,” he stated.
Additionally learn:
‘Our properties usually are not unlawful’: After sleepless nights, Haldwani residents welcome Supreme Courtroom keep
Hindutva mob stops Muslims from providing namaz in Uttarakhand’s Haldwani, assaults Imam
