Mosque, temples, graves among 82 structures razed in Delhi’s Mehrauli

The demolitions, which include a 12th century shrine of Sufi saint Baba Haji Rozbih and the centuries-old Akhoondji Masjid, have drawn criticism from activists

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) razed one mosque, four temples and 77 graves in Sanjay Van on January 30 as part of a so-called anti-encroachment drive, according to a list of demolitions maintained by the land-owning agency.

An anti-encroachment drive underway by DDA at Sanjay Van in January. (Arvind Yadav/HT Photo)

“Sanjay Van is a reserved forest, which is a part of the Southern Ridge. The Ridge Management Board has mandated that the ridge area be free all types of encroachment,” said a DDA official, adding that the 82 structures were spread over 16 locations in the sprawling 780-acre reserved forest in Mehrauli.

“In 2020, a committee headed by the south district magistrate to assess encroachments in Sanjay Van suggested the removal of various illegal structures inside,” said the official.

Hindu and Muslim bodies were, two years ago, asked to furnish a list of religious constructions inside Sanjay Van, said the official, and when the decision was taken to demolish them, “no objections were raised by the religious bodies in any of the meetings,” said a second DDA official. The official also claimed that the religious bodies did not produce any historical record of the demolished structures.

The demolitions, which include a 12th century shrine of Sufi saint Baba Haji Rozbih and the centuries-old Akhoondji Masjid, have drawn criticism from historians and activists, who have questioned the logic of tearing down edifices that have stood for nearly 900 years, instead of more recent constructions.

The official cited above argued that Sanjay Van is part of the vast Southern Ridge and under DDA’s jurisdiction, making it incumbent on the agency to remove encroachments in the reserved forest.

“In the 1960s, DDA purchased around 800 acres of land from different landowners. This eventually came to be known as Sanjay Van, which was declared a reserved forest in 1994,” said the first official.

“The religious bodies were asked to provide details to the agency’s religious committee, which was headed by the district magistrate (south). Police, revenue officials, and members of religious bodies were a part of this committee. Last December, the district conservator of forest (DCF) was also included in the committee as the encroached land comes under the ridge area,” said the first official.

The decision to remove the “illegal structures” was unanimous, said the second official.

“Removal of those illegal structures was unanimously approved by the religious committee, even in the minutes of the last meeting dated January 27, 2024. In compliance with it, a demolition programme was fixed by the horticulture department of the DDA on January 30,” said the second official.

To be sure, over 314 hectares of the Southern Ridge are encroached, according to reports submitted to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). These encroachments include multi-storey buildings and sprawling farmhouses, and authorities have done little to take them down, despite a series of court orders and observations.

Irreversible loss

A host of historians and activists have over the past week criticised DDA’s demolitions and stressed that the loss of ancient heritage was irreversible.

Sohail Hashmi, oral historian and heritage conservationist, said, “These are centuries-old structures that have also been repaired along the way. They teach us so much about the evolving architectural style, building techniques, and construction material. The Akhoondji mosque was built using grey stone mined in the Aravallis, but it was repaired centuries later in 1853, during the end of the Mughal era, when the material used was often sandstone or bricks. You could see glimpses of this. With each of these structures, there is so much to learn. How do you decide that this heritage does not have to live?”

A DDA official argued that the 12th century shrine and the Akhoondji Masjid were not protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and said they “do not touch structures that appear very old”.

Hashmi said that even if these structures are not protected, “It is not for DDA to decide whether they should stay or not, it is ASI’s.”

“If these structures existed before Sanjay Van was declared a reserved forest in 1994, then how are they encroachments? DDA should have first identified the encroachments, served a notice to the management of these structures, and then taken it to the courts,” he said.

Meanwhile, the DDA official said that the land-owning body does not touch structures that are ASI protected. “We don’t even touch structures that appear very old such as Lal Kot (ruins of a fort) and Anang Tal (a 1,000-year-old baoli or reservoir), which are inside Sanjay Van. When we came across them, we informed ASI. They have been excluded from the anti-encroachment drive,” said the DDA official.

ASI’s 1922 “List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, Volume III- Mahrauli Zila” compiled by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, assistant superintendent of the ASI at the time, mentions that Lal Kot is the “inner citadel of the fort of Rai Pithora,” and that it was built in 1060 AD. The ASI list mentions that “General Cunningham on the authority of two Hindu manuscripts ascribes Lal Kot to Anang Pal II,” the 11th century Tomar king.

The ASI list mentions Anang Tal as a “tank” and ascribes this as well to the Tomar king.

Praveen Singh, the superintending archaeologist of ASI’s Delhi circle, told HT that while parts of Lal Kot are protected by the ASI, Anang Tal is not an ASI-protected structure. Singh said, “Around two years ago, the lieutenant-governor had visited the area and had proposed that since this has links to a Tomar king, it should be given protection. The proposal was drafted but some people came forward with objections saying they had private property in the area. The proposal is still stuck at the ASI headquarters, and as of now, the baoli does not fall under ASI protection. As of now, it does not come under ASI,” he said.

(With inputs from Aheli Das)