Delhi High Court
Jamia Arabia Nizamia Welfare ... vs Delhi Wakf Board & Others on 12 January, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
18.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3927/2010
JAMIA ARABIA NIZAMIA WELFARE EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate
with Mohd. Sajid, Advocate.
versus
DELHI WAKF BOARD AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anjum Javed & Mr. Nirbhay
Sharma, Advocates for respondent No. 2.
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate for MCD.
Mr. Javed Ahmad & Mr. Eram Khan,
Advocates for DWB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 12.01.2011
The present writ petition is connected with Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 1512/1984. This Court in the said writ petition has passed the
following order:-
"By this writ petition, report under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have made the following
prayers:-
" In view of the aforesaid facts and in
the interest of justice, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously
pleased to issue a write(sic) of prohibition
prohibiting the respondents 1 to 3 from
implementing or giving effect to the office
order/letter/notification No. J.20011/4/74. 1-
II Govt. of India, Ministry of Works and
Housing dated 27.3.1984 marked as
annexure I and/or implementing or giving
effect to the recommendations of the Burney
Committee and a writ of certiorari quashing
the said office order/letter/notification and
directions contained in annexure I and a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to
3 not to transfer or dispose off the properties
mentioned in Annexure-I to the respondent
No. 4 in any manner whatsoever and any
other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and fit in the
circumstances of the case. The cost of the
writ petition be also allowed."
2. When this matter was listed on 1st
June, 1984, a Division Bench of this Court
passed the following order:-
" CW 1512/84
Rule.
CM 2045/84
Notice in C.M. for 18.7.1984. In the
meantime, status quo regarding the property
should be maintained and possession should
be retained by the Government. If lease
deeds have not yet been executed these
should not be executed. Dasti."
3. Thereafter, the said order continued
and eventually it was made absolute on 7th
January, 1985. It is agreed at the Bar that
the said order has not been vacated. It is
also accepted at the Bar that no lease deed
has been executed.
4. This Court on 26th August, 2010 had
passed the following order:-
" Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned
Additional Solicitor General has submitted
that the Union of India is likely to take a
policy decision within a period of four
weeks. It is submitted by him that if a
policy decision comes then there would be a
possibility that the controversy may be put
to rest.
Be that as it may, if a policy comes
into existence, there can be debate in that
regard on the next date of hearing.
List on 6th October, 2010."
5. On 6th October, 2010, the following
order came to be passed:-
" It is submitted by learned ASG that
parties concerned are looking into the
matter.
In view of the aforesaid, as prayed,
matter be listed on 19.1.2011. Counsel for
the petitioner has no objection."
6. On perusal of the orders passed and
the stand taken, we are of the considered
opinion that the Union of India is required to
consider the matter. Let the Union of India
re-look at the matter and take a decision
within six months form today. Till then, the
interim order passed by this Court on 1 st
June, 1984 shall remain in force. Needless
to say when we have directed that the Union
of India shall have a fresh look into the
matter, it shall keep in view the law in
praesenti and the factual position. All other
issues and contentions are left open.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of."
2. We have been apprised by Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that the encroachment should be removed.
In view of the decision pronounced in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1512/1984, the Union of India shall take appropriate steps for removal
of unauthorized encroachment and unauthorized construction as the
same has taken place in violation of the order passed by this Court in
the year 1984. Needless to say, when we have said unauthorized
construction and encroachments ought to be removed, it is obligatory
on the part of the Union of India that no person makes any kind of
unauthorized construction or encroachment. It needs no special
emphasis to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by an action of the
Union of India, it can approach the appropriate legal forum as advised
in law.
3. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Union of India to proceed
against the persons, who have unauthorisedly constructed and
encroached on the land in question, in accordance with law.
4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 12, 2011
VKR
