Justice Dinesh Pathak, sitting on a single-judge bench, heard arguments from both sides before disposing of the writ plea as withdrawn and declining to grant interim protection. The court asked the petitioning committee to approach the lower appellate court, emphasising that any relief should be considered on its own merits, unaffected by the High Court’s present order.
According to the petitioners, the demolition order dated 2 September was never formally communicated to them until 1 October. Their plea claimed that municipal and district authorities sought to demolish structures on 2 October—coinciding with Dussehra and a public holiday—with bulldozers and heavy machinery. They argued there was no prior opportunity to contest the order. State counsel countered that the petition was not maintainable, pointing out that the committee had an alternate remedy via appeal under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code. The mosque committee’s counsel then chose to withdraw the petition, but renewed a request for protection in the interim, which the court rejected.
The demolished marriage hall, spanning roughly 30,000 square feet, stood adjacent to the mosque in Raya Buzurg village. Authorities justified the action by asserting that both structures encroached on land that was formerly a pond and therefore public property. Officials contend that the survey and subsequent declarations of illegality followed legal procedure. This demolition marks a second such action against religious-affiliated structures in Sambhal within four months.
The mosque committee maintains that the place of worship has served the local Muslim community continuously since 2009 and disputed the legality and timing of notices. It accused the administration of choosing a holiday, when courts were shut, to carry out the demolition drive—an approach the committee claimed would hinder litigation and dilute public scrutiny. Their lead counsel, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, asserted that the order had not been served and that procedural safeguards had been bypassed.
State representatives and administrative officials, by contrast, emphasised that the structures lacked lawful title to the land and that notices had been given in accordance with the Revenue Code. They stressed that the petitioners must first exhaust the statutory appeal route before invoking writ jurisdiction. A representative for the state held that this process ensures orderly adjudication and prevents judicial overreach into executive decisions involving public land.
The Sambhal dispute is a flashpoint in a broader context of legal and communal tensions over places of worship and disputed land rights. In November 2024, violence erupted in Sambhal during a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, triggered by allegations that the mosque had been built atop a Hindu temple site. That clash led to multiple casualties and reinforced the sensitivity surrounding any intervention at mosques in the region. Later, the High Court upheld a lower court order permitting the continuation of the survey, rejecting the mosque committee’s challenge under the Places of Worship Act.
Local authorities have defended their operations as part of a wider crackdown on encroachments and unauthorised construction. Critics argue that demolition actions disproportionately target minority religious structures and risk inflaming communal tensions. Legal experts point out that the High Court’s stance reinforces the principle that statutory appeal mechanisms must be respected before invoking constitutional remedies, particularly in land disputes.