06/22/2026
Response to the District Administration’s Clarification Statement as the Landowner of Link
Following the demolition of Link Darbar, a strong wave of support emerged on social media in favor of the young entrepreneurs associated with the site. This support is highly commendable, and people from all walks of life raised their voices against the demolition. In response, the district administration issued a clarification statement. I would like to address a few points regarding that statement.
First, the district administration attempted to mislead the public by describing Link as state property. This claim is completely false, and we strongly condemn it. Link is not state property. After losing the case in the Sessions Court, the State appealed to the High Court. An interim decision has already been issued by the High Court, in which the State’s appeal was also rejected. Therefore, how can Link be considered state property? If Link is truly state property, then the district administration should present the relevant court decision to the public. Otherwise, they should stop misleading the people.
Secondly, if Link is state property, why did the Deputy Commissioner enter into an agreement with us before developing the DC Park? If it were state property, there would have been no need for any agreement with us. The agreement was made because we are the lawful landowners. Why then is the administration now creating confusion and misleading people by claiming that it is state property?
This is not only an attempt to deceive the public, but it is also a disappointing way of repaying the goodwill and cooperation we have extended over many years.
Thirdly, the district administration now claims that the demolition was carried out because the land is state property. However, when four Assistant Commissioners arrived on the day of the operation, they initially stated that the demolition was taking place because Link Darbar did not possess an NOC (No Objection Certificate). Later, they changed their position and claimed that the site was located on a riverbed, which was the reason for the demolition. Now we ask: whom should we believe?
If the Assistant Commissioners themselves were unsure of the legal basis for their actions, how were they able to proceed with such a major operation?
Fourthly, regardless of any operation or demolition the administration wishes to carry out, does the law not require that proper notice be served before taking such action?
You arrived with a large contingent of personnel, yet it appears that no one took the time to review the history of the case. How could you make a unilateral decision regarding a dispute that has existed for over 100 years? Without issuing any prior notice, approximately 50 officials arrived at the site. When court orders were presented to them, instead of reviewing the documents, they reportedly tore them up in front of the public, which constitutes a blatant violation of the sanctity of court orders.
Furthermore, all four Assistant Commissioners behaved disrespectfully toward our elders. This conduct clearly indicates that they were not there merely to carry out legal proceedings, but appeared to be pursuing some other agenda.
These are just a few of the points that needed clarification in response to the misinformation being spread and the attempts to mislead the public.
Umar Farooq
On behalf of the heirs of Ghulam Jailani
Landowners of Link
