NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice on a petition by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking removal of the stay which protects a 100-year-old Shahi Masjid and premises in Dhaula Kuan, from any action by the civic authority.
Earlier in November last year, the high court directed the authorities to not take any action, as of now, against the mosque, a graveyard and a school near Kitchener Lake, Bagh Mochi in Dhaula Kuan while hearing a plea apprehending demolition.
Submitting before Justice Sachin Datta, the civic authority said that the area in question forms part of Central Ridge, which is a protected forest, where residential and commercial activities are prohibited.
The Delhi government's religious committee has approved removal of encroachment there, the court was informed.
On DDA's plea, issuing notice to Shahi Masjid and Qabristan Kangal Shah, the high court sought replies within 10 days.
During the course of hearing, the court asked the DDA's counsel as to whether the encroachment includes the masjid and on what basis the authorities were contemplating removal of it.
"On what basis do you want to take the action? Make a clear and cogent case. Give me the exact dimensions. What is it that you want to remove and why?" the judge told the DDA's counsel and asked the lawyer to explain these when the matter is heard again on February 29.
The court said, "The point is, if the masjid is in existence for so long, under what law you want to remove it?"
On the point of encroachment, the court made it clear that the sanctity of the ridge has to be maintained and no one can be allowed to encroach upon the forest area.
The petitioner's counsel submitted there was no encroachment in the area where the mosque is situated.
The court also asked can the religious committee remove a structure which is vintage and is in existence for the last 50-60 years.
In its application, the DDA said, the grounds on which status quo order has been granted are untenable and causing serious prejudice to the authorities.
"The petitioner has made false and factually incorrect averments in the writ petition on the basis of which the November 2 order came to be passed," the civic authority said.