Telangana
,
Amberpet
,
Hyderabad
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Telangana Waqf Board Protests Mosque Demolition by GHMC, Demands Rebuilding
Reported by
Shivam Mogha
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People Affected
2019
Year started
1
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2019
Year started
1
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Telangana's Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and its Roads and Buildings Department have jointly been working on a 1.6kilometre flyover as part of the Strategic Road Development Plan to ease traffic flow between Glonaka and Amberpet. To this end, on May 2, 2019, the GHMC demolished a 200yearold mosque, popularly known as MasjideEkKhana, invoking tension between Muslim groups and members of Hindu rightwing organisations. According to the Telangana State Waqf Board members, who claim ownership over the land, they were not informed prior of the decision and the demolition hurt their religious sentiments. However, the GHMC claimed that it had already paid INR 2.5 crore as compensation to individuals living in the area, mostly shop owners, who the Waqf Board considers 'encroachers'. Infuriated by this, All India MajliseIttehadul Muslimeen (AINIM) and Majlis Bachao Tehreek, with the involvement of a few political parties, held multiple protests claiming ownership of the land and demanding the mosque's reconstruction. Speaking to The News Minute, Waqf Board CEO Shahnawaz Qasim said, The boards position on this matter is very clear. We have a Survey Commissioner Report from 1964 as well that shows the land is Waqf property. Although the reconstruction work began, it was abruptly halted by a stonepelting clash between Hindus and Muslims, which pushed the police to detain some protesters and maintain tight vigil. The Board claimed it had informed the GHMC about the encroachers, a detailed letter of which was sent to the assisstant city planner in May 2018. The Board said it did not receive any notice from the GHMC about the demolition or ex gratia paid to individuals who sold the land. It also argued that the GHMC did not even consider approaching the court over the land dispute. On July 29, 2019, a delegation of Muslim religious leaders met State Home Minister Mahmood Ali who assured to resolve the issue and construct the mosque in the near future. In July 2020, Muslim groups demanded the removal of the Waqf Board chairman, pointing at the failure of the Board to protect their mosques.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to get back acquired land

Complaint against procedural violations

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Rebuilding of the mosque

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

N/A

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

150.55

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Shivam Mogha

Telangana

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Rajasthan
Rajasthan

UIT Bikaner's Jorbeer Housing Project on Stalls Following Rajasthan High Court Order

Rajasthan
Rajasthan

Jaipur Development Authority Acquires Land for Township Project, Ending Conflict

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Farmers land acquired under Mansarovar Housing Scheme in Lucknow

Maharashtra
Maharashtra

Citizens unite against cycle track around Powai, Vihar Lakes in Mumbai

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Families displaced by Mandal Dam in Jharkhand opppose project resumption

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Jharkhand approves Adani's thermal plant, farmers allege violation of LARR Act

Gujarat
Gujarat

Pastoral Community in Gujarat's Banni Grasslands Demands Titles Recognising Community Forest Rights

Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Builder Encroaches Upon Farmers Land in Gosaiganj Lucknow, 150 Allottees in Lurch

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to get back acquired land

Complaint against procedural violations

Telangana Waqf Board Protests Mosque Demolition by GHMC, Demands Rebuilding

Reported by

Shivam Mogha

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

January 24, 2020

May 17, 2022

Edited on

January 24, 2020

Sector

Land Use

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)

Starting Year

2019

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

People Affected by Conflict

State

Telangana

Sector

Land Use

People Affected by Conflict

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

1

ha

Starting Year

2019

Location of Conflict

Amberpet

Hyderabad

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Encroachment by Non-Right Holders (Other than Caste-based)

Land Conflict Summary

Telangana's Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and its Roads and Buildings Department have jointly been working on a 1.6kilometre flyover as part of the Strategic Road Development Plan to ease traffic flow between Glonaka and Amberpet. To this end, on May 2, 2019, the GHMC demolished a 200yearold mosque, popularly known as MasjideEkKhana, invoking tension between Muslim groups and members of Hindu rightwing organisations. According to the Telangana State Waqf Board members, who claim ownership over the land, they were not informed prior of the decision and the demolition hurt their religious sentiments. However, the GHMC claimed that it had already paid INR 2.5 crore as compensation to individuals living in the area, mostly shop owners, who the Waqf Board considers 'encroachers'. Infuriated by this, All India MajliseIttehadul Muslimeen (AINIM) and Majlis Bachao Tehreek, with the involvement of a few political parties, held multiple protests claiming ownership of the land and demanding the mosque's reconstruction. Speaking to The News Minute, Waqf Board CEO Shahnawaz Qasim said, The boards position on this matter is very clear. We have a Survey Commissioner Report from 1964 as well that shows the land is Waqf property. Although the reconstruction work began, it was abruptly halted by a stonepelting clash between Hindus and Muslims, which pushed the police to detain some protesters and maintain tight vigil. The Board claimed it had informed the GHMC about the encroachers, a detailed letter of which was sent to the assisstant city planner in May 2018. The Board said it did not receive any notice from the GHMC about the demolition or ex gratia paid to individuals who sold the land. It also argued that the GHMC did not even consider approaching the court over the land dispute. On July 29, 2019, a delegation of Muslim religious leaders met State Home Minister Mahmood Ali who assured to resolve the issue and construct the mosque in the near future. In July 2020, Muslim groups demanded the removal of the Waqf Board chairman, pointing at the failure of the Board to protect their mosques.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to get back acquired land

Complaint against procedural violations

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Rebuilding of the mosque

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

N/A

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

150.55

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Other

Legislations/Policies Involved

Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960
Section 67 [Proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If, in the course of proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it appears to the collector before an award is made that any property under acquisition is waqf property, a notice of such acquisition shall be served by the collector to the Board and further proceedings shall be stayed to enable the Board to appear and plead as a party to the proceeding at any time within three months from the date of the receipt of such notice]
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Violation of free prior informed consent

Legal Status:

Out of Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Telangana State Waqf Board, Telangana State Minority Commission, Roads and Buildings Department, Police Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Majlis Bachao Tehreek, Telangana Rashtra Samithi, Bharatiya Janata Party, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Other Land Conflicts in Telangana

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us