On February 8, 2024, violence erupted in Banbhoolpura, a suburb of Haldwani, leading to the deaths of five Muslims, one of whom is a minor. By February 15, the death toll rose to six. While the trigger for this violence was the demolition of a madrasa and an adjoining mosque, the present incident is part of the larger conflict in Haldwani’s largest minority suburb.
The ‘Malik ka bageecha’ madrasa and Mariyam mosque are located on Nazul land (non-agricultural common land), occupied by the Abdul Malik family for decades. The disputed plot of land had been leased out to one Mohammad Yaseen “for agricultural purposes” by the state government since 1937, according to according to a petition by Safia Malik, wife of the owner of madrasa, Abdul Malik. In 1994, Yaseen reportedly sold the plot to Akhtari Begum, who later gifted it to Abdul Hameed Khan, Malik’s father, “by virtue of an oral gift”, or Hiba. Malik’s father had initiated the process for transfer to a freehold in 2007.
On January 30, 2024, Abdul Mallik received a notice to demolish the structures. He approached the District Magistrate, requesting a stay until a decision was made on the plea seeking a freehold, filed 15 years ago. However, the Municipal Corporation scheduled the demolition for 4 February. This was postponed due to representations made by community members, including representations made by seven members of the BJP along with local leaders of the Congress and AAP as well as religious leaders.
Within two days, Safia Malik filed a case with the Uttarakhand High Court, requesting an urgent decision. The community also attested that they would adhere to the decision of the Court. However, the Uttarakhand High Court deferred the hearing to February 14.
On February 8, at 4 pm, bulldozers with a large police escort arrived to demolish the structures. They were met by resistance from local community members, many of whom were women. The police responded aggressively as is seen in videos of women being manhandled by personnel.
This escalated the situation, resulting in stone pelting and arson. The police station was gheraoed allegedly with police personnel inside. However, at least one eyewitness report claims that residents took shelter in the police station to escape the mob.
Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami called a high-level meeting in wake of the tension. Following which, the state information department issued a statement mentioning shoot on sight order.
On the day of the violence, five people were killed and at least 60 injured. Experts have noted that the police order is extra-judicial in nature. While police forces are allowed to use force while arresting people, the existing law prohibits excessive use of force.
Several videos have emerged of stone pelters attacking vehicles in the presence of the police while shouting communal slurs. According to a report by Maktoob Media, this incident occurred a day after a hall meeting was organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad where Pravin Togadia delivered a speech inciting violence against Muslims.
During a hearing on 14 February, the court asked the petitioner how construction could be carried out at the site when the disputed property was given on lease by the government as agricultural land. The court added that the process of freehold on agricultural land is different and if construction is done on such land then the lease is automatically suspended. The court further directed the government to file a counter affidavit.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled on May 8, 2024.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Complaint against procedural violations
Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Demand for legal recognition of land rights
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
Arrest
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
42
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Currently under arrest
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Don't Know
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
National Security Act, 1980
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Religious/Sacred/Cultural value
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
Yes
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Forced evictions/dispossession of land
Violation of fundamental rights
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Number
WPMS 319 of 2024
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Lathicharge/teargas/pellets
Physical attack
Killing
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
The mosque and madrasa are close to the Banbhoolpura police station. When the authorities moved in to demolish the structure, the residents protested. The police reacted strongly, and some women were manhandled. This escalated the situation and led to the police station being gheraoed and alleged stone pelting incidents. The police retaliated by bringing in reinforcements and using teargas and allegedly, rubber bullets. There is increasing video evidence that the police were accompanied by civilians who used anti-Muslim slurs, pelted stones, and damaged property. This let to a riot where vehicles were torched and police personnel injured. A ‘shoot at sight’ order was issued soon after CM held a high-level meeting. Six people have been confirmed dead and 60 injured following this order.
Date of Violation
February 7, 2024
Location of Violation
Banbhoolpura, Haldwani
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Police, District Magistrate
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
None
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
None
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Residents of Banbhoolpura
What was the action taken by the police?
Arrest
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
42
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Currently under arrest
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Don't Know
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
National Security Act, 1980
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Chicu is an independent consultant working on water conflicts with a focus on stakeholder negotiations. Since 2008, she has worked on the assessment of environmental flows for several major rivers and studied natural resource-related negotiations conflicts in the Gangetic basin and North-Eastern India. She lives and works in the Uttarakhand Himalaya.
Farmers in Assam resist land acquisition for solar plant, beaten by police
Surat farmers claim fertile land re-included in Gujarat's development plan without consent
Villagers in Gadchiroli campaign to shut down Surjagarh iron ore mine
Encroachment, land dispute pose threat to newly designated Behali Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam
Residents in Krishnagiri protest against takeover of land by SIPCOT
Tension in Arunachal's Lower Siang over Likabali-Durpai road project amid boundary disputes
Tamil Nadu revives plan to construct Kanyakumari Port despite protests by fisherfolk
Bauxite mining at Mali Parbat in Koraput seeks to displace and disrupt local livelihoods