So it seems like there is a liberal lobby which is always waiting to jump on any incident to tarnish the image of Islam, Muslims, and Ulema. Here is the explanation by Mufti Tariq Masood Damat Barakatuhul 'Aalia
1. If the Masjid had been constructed on a personal property, then it would be wajib to demolish that mosque. As a matter of fact, it would not be Jaiz (permissible) to even pray in that mosque.
2. Park belongs to the public.
3. Now, first of all, within the government's urban planning, no space is allocated for mosques, ever. Most mosques are constructed on spaces allocated for parks, hospitals, schools. This is incompetence of the government. The government has not allocated spaces for mosques in proportion to population.
4. So the park was for the public. But the public constructed a mosque there and is giving importance to the mosque instead of the park. The public knows there are a number of parks and recreational spaces that exist already. Also, an individual would use the park just once a day, whereas the mosque is needed 5 times a day. When the government does not provide space for a mosque, then people will construct it on the space allocated for the park.
5. If this was something illegal, why has this matter been left for 25 years? You could have demolished it after one month, two or three months.
6. Demolishing the mosque shows a lack of God Fearliness. In the minds of people, this space is now associated with mosque and praying. When these people see the park after the mosque is demolished, would they not be reminded of the Azans coming from this place, the prayers that were conducted there? How could a devout Muslim perform recreational activities there?
7. Let us see what is the meaning of Masjid. It means to transfer something from one's ownership into the Ownership of Allah the Almighty. Thus, Ulema are unified on the point that once a space has been designated for a mosque, it remains a mosque until the Day of Judgement, because you have given it into the Ownership of Allah and you cannot reclaim its ownership. Even the person who has dedicated the space cannot reclaim it. So this is not an enmity with Molvis, this is an enmity with Allah the Almighty Himself.
8. It is to be noted that in other countries 'government property' is actually called 'public property'. But we use the term 'government property'. These terms matter. They create an image that the government is now the sole and independent owner. The government owns nothing. What belongs to the government is actually the property of the public. The government has not right to intrude on public property.
9. This same tragedy befell Nasla Tower. People have been living there for such a long time. The Mufti Sahib says that the owner attends his Bayans and he told him that this is a great injustice because all documents of this tower were completed. He says it is impossible for a builder to build anything before legalizing it. Your law is so complicated that even after a building is constructed and 15, 20, or even 30 years have passed, anyone can bring up some paper and initiate legal proceedings against it. The builder was saying that we are demolishing the building as instructed, but the government needs to tell us from whom we should obtain permission for any other construction? In the current system, one officer can sign the papers but if he gets transferred and someone else comes in, he can deny the legality given by the previous one. Now since the government is at fault for the delay, the court should have ordered the government to pay damages to the owners and the builder before the building is demolished. He says I am proposing payment of damages before demolition because there is no guarantee the government will actually pay the damages.
10. If this was a case of illegal encroachment upon a public road etc, we would have supported the removal of the encroachment by the mosque.
) ? 
