District authorities say the madrasa was built on pond land and imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty
SITAPUR — A madrasa operator in Uttar Pradesh’s Sitapur district has begun demolishing the institution’s building himself after district authorities declared it an illegal construction and issued an ultimatum for its removal.
The incident has drawn widespread attention across the district after videos showing the building being dismantled circulated on social media this week. Locals said the action was taken after the operator feared that the administration would carry out a bulldozer demolition if the structure was not removed within the stipulated period.
The madrasa is located in Amalia Sultanpur area of Sitapur district. According to district officials, the institution had allegedly been constructed on land recorded as a pond, making the structure unauthorised under existing land regulations.
The matter came to the attention of the administration following a complaint submitted by a resident identified as Vikas Hindu. The complaint alleged that the madrasa had been built on public pond land and sought an official investigation into the matter.
Following the complaint, a revenue department team conducted an inquiry into the land records. Officials stated that the investigation concluded that the madrasa building had been constructed on land designated as a pond.
Based on the findings, the matter was placed before the district administration for further action.
According to officials, the madrasa was being operated by Maulana Shaukat Kashmiri. After reviewing the case, the District Magistrate’s court reportedly declared the structure illegal and issued directions for its removal.
The administration also imposed a financial penalty of ₹10 lakh on the institution.
Officials said the madrasa management was given 15 days to remove the structure voluntarily.
The order created concern among those associated with the institution, particularly in light of recent anti-encroachment drives and demolition campaigns carried out in different parts of Uttar Pradesh.
Residents said that shortly after the order was issued, workers began dismantling sections of the building using hand tools, including hammers, chisels and other equipment.
Video footage that later appeared on social media showed portions of the structure being pulled down manually.
Local people said the work was undertaken to avoid a larger demolition operation by the administration.
A resident familiar with the matter said the decision appeared to have been taken after authorities adopted a firm stance regarding the implementation of the order.
“People in the area believe the demolition is being carried out by the management itself because they do not want the administration to bring bulldozers and remove the building,” the resident said.
The videos have since become widely discussed online, with many users commenting on the growing number of anti-encroachment actions taking place across the state.
District Magistrate Dr Raj Ganapathy R confirmed that an order had been issued in the case.
According to the administration, the land on which the madrasa stood was recorded as pond land and therefore could not legally be used for construction.
“We have passed the order and imposed the prescribed penalty. The structure was found to be on pond land. The operator has started demolition work on his own,” the District Magistrate said.
The official also made it clear that the administration would continue taking action against encroachments on public land.
“Illegal occupation of government land will not be tolerated under any circumstances,” he said.
The case has once again highlighted the wider debate surrounding anti-encroachment drives in Uttar Pradesh.
Supporters of such actions argue that public land, including ponds, roads and other common resources, must be protected from unauthorised construction regardless of the identity of those involved.
They say strict enforcement is necessary to preserve public assets and prevent future disputes.
Others, however, argue that demolition orders involving educational and religious institutions often have a significant impact on local communities and should be handled with transparency and adequate opportunities for appeal.
Legal experts note that disputes involving land designated as ponds are particularly sensitive because such land is protected under various environmental and revenue laws.
Courts across India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of preserving ponds and other water bodies from encroachment due to their environmental significance and their role in groundwater recharge and flood management.
At the same time, cases involving long-standing institutions often generate local concern because communities may have used such buildings for years before legal questions are raised.
In Sitapur, the administration maintains that the matter was examined through official procedures and that the action followed an investigation into land records.
Officials insist that the decision was based on the status of the land rather than the nature of the institution operating there.
As demolition work continues, residents are closely watching developments to see whether the entire structure will be removed before the deadline expires.
The incident has become another example of how land disputes, administrative action and community institutions can become intertwined, particularly in areas where questions of public land ownership and historical use remain contested.
For now, the madrasa operator’s decision to dismantle the building himself has prevented an immediate bulldozer operation, but the case continues to attract attention across Sitapur and beyond as discussions over encroachment, public land and administrative enforcement remain at the centre of public debate.
