Minority community moves HC after mosque in Doon sealed

Dehradun: Members of the Muslim Seva Sangathan (MSS) have approached the Uttarakhand high court (HC) two days after the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) sealed the Jama Masjid in Dehradun’s Thano area. The petition is expected to be heard on Thursday. The MSS has sought immediate revocation of the sealing order, an impartial inquiry into the matter and action in accordance with religious freedom and the rule of law.

“The move to seal the entire mosque is unjust and illegal. The Thano Jama Masjid has existed since 1979 and has been recorded as a mosque in govt records since 1988. Portraying it as a recent construction is contrary to the facts,” said MSS president Naeem Qureshi.

Residents of the area said Rs 8 lakh had been sanctioned by the minority welfare department a few years ago for the construction of a room for the imam and that the work was executed by the water works department. “While allocating the funds, the then-principal secretary had stipulated that the necessary map approvals be obtained. If any procedural norms were not followed, the responsibility lies with the executing agency and the concerned officials, not the mosque management. Action should therefore be initiated against the officials responsible for the lapse,” the MSS president said.

MSS members alleged that the action violated provisions introduced through amendments to Uttarakhand’s urban planning and development laws in 2017, which mandate that authorities issue notice before initiating punitive action. They claimed that “no such notice was served on the management of the Thano mosque before the sealing was carried out”.

“First, the specific room was sealed and then the entire mosque was sealed. This violates the principles of natural justice. The mosque predates the formation of the MDDA and serious legal questions remain regarding the authority’s jurisdiction over religious sites. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the present action infringes upon the community’s religious rights,” said Akki Qureshi, a resident.

Residents have also sought alternative arrangements for prayers. “We still do not know where we will offer prayers. We requested the authorities to provide an alternative site, but have received no response. Around 30-35 families depend on this decades-old mosque,” Qureshi added.

MDDA officials, when queried, said that the action was taken under the Uttarakhand Town and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973. According to the authority, mosque operations were being conducted on the first and second floors of the building “without the necessary approvals”.

“Uniform rules apply to all institutions and building owners. The objective is not to target any individual, institution or community, but to ensure compliance with the law. Any construction activity, institutional operation or change in land use within the authority’s jurisdiction must comply with prescribed regulations and obtain the necessary approvals,” said MDDA vice-chairman Bansidhar Tiwari.

He added, “Notices had been issued, hearings conducted and additional time granted on humanitarian grounds. However, the required records were not submitted and inspections found that the violations continued, necessitating action under the law.”

The first floor of the building was sealed on Dec 17, 2025. Subsequently, the mosque’s managing committee sought additional time, citing the absence of alternative accommodation for the imams, which was granted by the authority. According to officials, the committee was asked to submit a no-objection certificate from the Uttarakhand Waqf Board, registration and recognition documents from the Uttarakhand Madrassa Education Council, and other records. Hearings were held on Jan 7 and Feb 11, but the documents were not furnished within the stipulated period, they claimed.

In Feb, the HC had dismissed a petition by the Jama Masjid Society, Thano, challenging the MDDA’s decision to seal the mosque over alleged unauthorised construction. The court observed that the society had carried out construction without obtaining the required approvals and had not applied for compounding the violations. However, it granted limited relief, directing the MDDA to consider any application for compounding submitted by the society, along with the requisite documents, within four weeks of its filing.