New Delhi: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Maulana Mahmood Madani on Monday, July 20, expressed serious concern over the demolition order for 38 buildings of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Uttar Pradesh’s Rampur and sought reconsideration of the directive.
Madani said the issue raises fundamental questions about the rule of law, natural justice and the State’s constitutional obligations.
He said the demolition would have far-reaching consequences for the educational future of thousands of students, adversely affect their fundamental rights, and result in the loss of an important university that is also a valuable national educational asset.
‘Demolition neither the sole nor the mandatory remedy under law’
Madani said that even where violations of planning or building regulations are established, demolition is neither the sole nor the mandatory remedy under the law.
If a structure does not fundamentally contravene the approved land use or the Master Plan, the authority may consider approval of revised building plans, regularisation, compounding of violations, payment of development charges, or other statutory penalties instead of demolition, he said.
Madani also referred to judicial precedents, including those relating to an engineering college in Kanpur’s Rooma Industrial Area and cases involving Varanasi, Jhansi and Allahabad development authorities in which the courts favoured regularisation, compounding and other statutory corrective measures over immediate demolition.
Madani urges govt to consider lawful alternatives
He urged the Uttar Pradesh government to reconsider the demolition order and give priority to lawful alternatives that would protect this national educational asset while safeguarding the future of thousands of students.
The Rampur Development Authority has ordered the demolition of 38 buildings at Mohammad Ali Jauhar University, founded by jailed Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, saying they were constructed without approval of the building plan.
The university argued that the area was outside the RDA’s jurisdiction when the buildings were constructed, a contention rejected by the authority.
