We grew up around this historic Delhi mosque - now we have been forced out

Hundreds of families were forced from three settlements surrounding a historic mosque in Race Course, one of Delhi’s wealthiest neighbourhoods. Many had lived there for generations while working as drivers, cleaners and gardeners nearby. The demolitions broke up homes, jobs, schools and long-standing religious communities.

On 7 October, authorities demolished the houses, saying they stood illegally on government land and were too close to military installations. Some 717 families were relocated to Savda Ghevra, nearly 31 miles away. Residents had challenged the move, but the Delhi High Court allowed it after accepting security concerns and noting that housing had been provided.

The mosque and a nearby Hindu temple remained standing, but water and electricity were cut. Worshippers are often turned away. Residents describe losing work and support networks, while the mosque’s future remains uncertain as legal objections and petitions continue.

The relocation affected 717 families from three settlements around the mosque in Race Course. Their new settlement, Savda Ghevra, lies nearly 31 miles from the neighbourhood where they had lived and worked. The distance matters because many residents depended on nearby households for employment and on local communities for daily support.

Residents had argued in Delhi High Court that such a move would disrupt their jobs, schools and social networks. The court nevertheless allowed the relocation in August, accepting the government’s security concerns and noting that alternative housing had been provided. On 7 October, the houses were demolished and families moved.

The new apartments offered shelter, but not an easy replacement for their previous lives. Rekha lost the dishwashing work she depended on, and her son struggled to find a job. Researchers say distant relocation causes income loss and weakens informal support systems.

Authorities gave two main reasons for demolishing the homes. They said the houses had been built illegally on government land and stood too close to military installations. The government also cited security concerns when defending the relocation in court. The Delhi High Court accepted those concerns and noted that alternative housing had been provided.

The mosque and nearby Hindu temple were not demolished on 7 October, but both lost water and electricity. Access to the compound was restricted, and worshippers were generally turned away at the gates. The government later opposed restoring prayer access, saying demolition work created safety concerns. The worshippers’ lawyer disputed that position.

The restrictions made the surviving religious sites difficult to use. The mosque’s authorities sought restoration of utilities, while a worshipper petitioned over prayer restrictions and feared possible demolition. On 29 October, the government promised no action against the mosque for four weeks while considering objections.

Waqf property means land or buildings set aside under Islamic law for religious or charitable purposes. The label matters because it can establish a different basis for control from ordinary government land. In this dispute, the mosque’s status is central to deciding who legally holds the site and what protections it may have.

Mosque authorities say the building was registered as waqf property in 1977. The Delhi Waqf Board lists it as a heritage structure and says it is nearly 300 years old, although other estimates place its age at 125 to 150 years. The government says it owns the land. Those claims directly conflict.

The board has asked authorities to restore water and electricity and raised concerns about the mosque’s future. A worshipper also petitioned over restricted prayers and possible demolition. On 29 October, the government said it would take no action for four weeks while considering the board’s objections.

Relocation changes more than an address when families depend on nearby jobs and community ties. Moving from central Delhi to the outskirts can make work inaccessible, interrupt children’s schooling and remove the informal support networks that help families manage daily life. The result is often lost income and greater insecurity.

Rekha illustrates the effect. She washed dishes in nearby homes, but lost that work after moving. Her 19-year-old son struggled to find a job. Urban researcher Mukta Naik said relocation disconnects people from jobs and networks, causing livelihood and income loss. Families that scatter also find it harder to rebuild mutual support.

The new housing does not solve every problem. Rekha received a third-floor apartment, but stairs are painful because of a metal rod in her leg. Residents had argued in court that moving would upend their jobs, schools and communities. Their experience shows why formal housing can still leave people economically and socially displaced.

Delhi’s relocation history reflects a recurring pattern: working-class communities are moved away from central areas when they cannot prove legal ownership of land they have occupied for decades. Critics say this process separates residents from jobs and support networks. It turns long-established neighbourhoods into temporary-looking settlements in official eyes, despite generations of local life.

Savda Ghevra embodies that history. It was established in 2006 on farmland near Delhi’s border with Haryana to house families displaced from elsewhere in the city. The latest arrivals from Race Course were therefore joining a settlement already shaped by earlier displacement. Their move continued a citywide pattern rather than standing alone.

The consequences extend beyond housing. Researchers say relocated families lose income and informal support as they scatter in search of work. The article gives no final assessment of Savda Ghevra’s latest arrivals, but their experiences suggest that providing apartments does not automatically restore livelihoods, schools or community connections.

Who can remain in a city depends on several overlapping decisions. Authorities may classify land as government-owned, require documents proving legal occupation, or restrict places near military installations. Urban planning then determines where displaced residents can live. These rules can favour formally recognised land claims over long-term residence and local work.

The Race Course case shows the mechanism clearly. Authorities called the homes illegal because they stood on government land and cited nearby military installations. The mosque authorities answered that the site had been registered as waqf property in 1977. The Delhi High Court accepted security concerns and allowed relocation after noting that alternative housing existed.

The outcome was not simply demolition or replacement housing. Families lost central jobs and networks, while the mosque’s ownership and future remained contested. The government restricted access during demolition work, and the court scheduled another hearing. Legal status, security policy and housing provision therefore shaped who could stay and what remained.