Qadeemi Masjid Site Needed for Central Vista: Centre Tells Delhi HC
Government says mosque land is required for redevelopment of CCS Buildings 4 and 5; caretaking committee challenges proposed action
- Centre tells Delhi High Court Qadeemi Masjid cannot remain at its present site.
- Land required for redevelopment of CCS Buildings 4 and 5.
- Government cites a 1940 agreement permitting occupation by the caretaking committee.
- Mosque’s caretaking committee has challenged the proposed action.
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 3rd Nov: The Union Government has told the Delhi High Court that Qadeemi Masjid inside the Krishi Bhawan premises cannot be retained at its present location, as the land is required for the redevelopment of Common Central Secretariat (CCS) Buildings 4 and 5 under the Central Vista project.
In a status report filed through the Land and Development Office (L&DO), the Centre maintained that the property belongs to the government and that the mosque’s caretaking committee does not have ownership rights over the land.
Centre cites 1940 agreement
In its submission, the government said the caretaking committee had been permitted to occupy the property under an agreement executed in 1940.
According to the Centre, the arrangement allowed the committee to use and look after the premises but did not transfer ownership of the land or create any proprietary rights.
The government has argued that the site’s requirement for the Central Vista redevelopment makes it impossible to retain the religious structure at its existing location.
Caretaking committee challenges proposed action
The Centre’s response follows a petition filed by Qadeemi Masjid, Krishi Bhawan, through its caretaking committee, challenging the proposed action concerning the mosque.
The petition has brought the status of the religious structure and the government’s land-use requirements before the Delhi High Court.
The court’s consideration of the matter will determine how the competing claims and legal issues are examined. The Centre’s status report represents its position in the ongoing proceedings; it is not a final judicial determination of the dispute.
