The order covers a 315-square-metre parcel within the high-security administrative campus in western Uttar Pradesh. Authorities have been directed to carry out the eviction if the occupants fail to leave within the specified period.
City Magistrate Kuldeep Singh passed the order under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises Act, 1972, after examining revenue records and submissions from both sides. The court held that the land belonged to the state government and that the respondents had failed to establish a lawful right to occupy it.
Representatives of the mosque have disputed the findings and said they plan to challenge the ruling through a revision petition. Mutawalli Tanveer Ahmed has claimed that the mosque is about 150 years old, raising questions about the chronology cited in the government’s case and the long-standing use of the site for worship.
The proceedings followed an inquiry into a complaint filed by Vikas Tyagi, a former provincial coordinator of the Bajrang Dal. Tyagi alleged that a religious structure had been established without authorisation inside the Collectorate, where confidential administrative work is conducted.
A revenue official filed a formal complaint against Abdul Hamid, described in the proceedings as the alleged manager and maulvi of the mosque, in March 2025. Notices were issued the following month, while the respondents submitted objections on June 11, 2025.
The administration’s case stated that the building was originally constructed as a rest house for litigants visiting the Collectorate. It alleged that parts of the ground and first floors were later occupied, converted for prayers and used to accommodate outsiders.
Officials also alleged that several rooms had been rented to third parties for residential or commercial use. A post office was said to be operating from part of the premises, with rent allegedly collected by those controlling the building.
The respondents rejected the allegations and argued that the state had not adequately proved ownership of the disputed property. They maintained that the revenue entries relied upon by the administration described the physical character of the land but did not conclusively establish title.
They also accused the authorities of withholding relevant documents and attempting to take control of a functioning place of worship. Their submissions challenged the government’s interpretation of the historical records and questioned the basis for treating the occupation as illegal.
A document purportedly issued by the Sunni Central Waqf Board was presented in support of the mosque’s claim. The administration alleged that the document was forged and argued that the board could not declare government land to be waqf property without a valid legal foundation.
The court said the respondents had produced no licence, allotment order, lease or permission authorising them to occupy the building, accommodate tenants or convert government premises into a religious site. It also held that they had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence establishing private or waqf ownership.
Revenue records identified the site as Khasra No. 539 and described it as Collectorate or Kachahri land. The court found that the classification had appeared in official records since Fasli Years 1324 and 1359 and had been recorded in similar terms even earlier.
The Rs 6.41 crore demand was calculated as compensation for what the court described as prolonged unauthorised occupation. The assessment covered a 70-year period beginning from Fasli Year 1359 and applied the prescribed formula for damages and penal charges.
The administration had also sought the recovery of rent allegedly collected from occupants and commercial users. Its petition requested that such amounts, along with penal rent and compound interest of 12 per cent, be deposited in the government treasury.
The mosque’s representatives are expected to seek a stay on the eviction while pursuing the revision petition. Any appellate authority examining the dispute will have to consider the competing claims over ownership, the age of the structure, the authenticity of the waqf document and the method used to calculate damages.
