Violence marks anti-encroachment demolition drive near Delhi mosque

At least five police personnel were injured after an anti-encroachment drive near the historic Turkman Gate area of central Delhi turned violent in the early hours of Wednesday, exposing deep fault lines between civic enforcement, local resistance and unresolved legal claims over the land.

The clashes erupted when teams from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), supported by a heavy police deployment, moved to demolish allegedly unauthorised structures adjoining the Syed Faiz Elahi mosque and graveyard near Ramlila Maidan. The action followed a Delhi High Court directive asking the civic body to clear encroachments from the Ramlila Ground area.

According to the police, around 300 officials and workers were deployed for the drive, which involved nearly 30 bulldozers and 50 dump trucks. As demolition began, a group of local residents allegedly resorted to stone-pelting, forcing the police to use tear gas to disperse the crowd. Officials said 25 to 30 people were involved in the violence, resulting in minor injuries to five policemen.

Senior police officer Nidhin Valsan said the situation was quickly brought under control and that cases would be registered based on statements from injured personnel and MCD staff. He added that the police were scrutinising more than 100 video clips to identify those involved in the violence. “We will take action against those who indulged in stone-pelting,” he said.

While the violence has drawn sharp criticism, the timing and manner of the demolition have also raised questions. The drive was carried out at night, ostensibly to minimise public inconvenience, but critics argue that late-night action in a sensitive area inevitably heightened tensions and left little room for dialogue.

The MCD maintains that it acted strictly in compliance with a November 2025 Delhi High Court order, which granted three months to clear nearly 38,940 sq. ft of encroachments at Ramlila Ground near Turkman Gate. In December, the civic body publicly stated that only 0.195 acres of land — housing the mosque — was legally leased, and that all structures beyond this limit were unauthorised.

According to the MCD, no documentary proof was submitted by either the mosque’s managing committee or the Delhi Waqf Board to establish lawful ownership or possession of the additional land. The alleged encroachments included parts of a road, a footpath, a baraat ghar, a parking area and a private diagnostic centre, some of which were demolished during the drive.

However, the matter is far from settled legally. On Tuesday, a day before the violence, the Delhi High Court sought responses from multiple authorities, including the MCD, the Ministry of Urban Development, the Delhi Development Authority, the Public Works Department and the Delhi Waqf Board, on a petition challenging the demolition order.

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the issue required consideration and asked the authorities to file replies within four weeks, listing the matter for further hearing on 22 April. The petition, filed by the managing committee of Masjid Syed Faiz Elahi, claims that the land is a notified waqf property governed by the Waqf Act and that disputes relating to it fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal.

The committee has said it does not oppose the removal of encroachments and has already stopped the functioning of the baraat ghar and clinic. Its primary objection, it claims, relates to the graveyard on the land, which it argues is being used lawfully, with lease rent paid to the waqf board.

The MCD, on its part, has stated that the 0.195-acre parcel was leased as far back as February 1940 and insists that no action is being proposed on the land covered by this lease.

The episode underscores failures on multiple fronts — from residents resorting to violence instead of lawful protest, to authorities pushing ahead with coercive action amid pending legal scrutiny. As the case returns to court, the incident serves as a reminder that bulldozers and stone-pelting alike are poor substitutes for transparent governance and timely legal resolution.

With agency inputs