Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging an order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 11 was allowed directing the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 8 not to interfere with the action of the writ petitioner in removal of the structure forming part of Khasra No. 6731 at Village Pur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
Brief Facts:
The writ petitioner was granted lease of an area vide lease deed dated 8.12.2010 for the mining of Gold, Silver, Lead, Zinc, Copper, Iron, Cobalt, Nickle and associated minerals near Village Dhedwas, Rajasthan. It was communicated that if the mining work is carried out without causing harm to Devsthan and not using the harmful explosives, then there is no objection in carrying out mining work in that survey number. In the detailed report, certain survey numbers in different villages are mentioned wherein there was a proposal not to grant permission and also certain other survey numbers wherein permission was proposed to be given. In Survey Nos. 543 there was a proposal not to grant permission in view of barren land near religious place. However, in respect of the area in question in Village Pur, the mining was proposed to be carried out in Land Survey No. 235. It was thus proposed that permission is not to be granted in total of 213 Bigha 11 Biswa, for the mining work whereas in 325 Bigha 19 Biswa, permission was to be granted. It is thereafter that the lease was executed by the State in favor of the writ petitioner. The District Magistrate communicated that an FIR has been registered and a sum of Rs.65 lakhs has been recovered. It was in this background; respondent No. 1 herein filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such Expert Committee constituted had no representative of the appellant and the appellant was not associated with the report so submitted, therefore, the report cannot be made basis of rejecting the structure on the Hill as not a religious structure. It was contended that whether the structure is a waqf or not has to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal in terms of Section 83 of the Act and not in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the detailed report submitted by the
Tehsildar, Survey No. 931 over which the said structure is found in the survey report was not part of the lease. It was argued that the claim of the appellant is wholly untenable as at no point of time, any revenue record shows any religious structure on the land comprising in Survey No. 6731. In fact, the religious structure is said to be in existence over Survey No. 931. It was contended that a perusal of the photographs shows that the structure is totally dilapidated without any roof and in fact a wall and some broken derelict platform exist at the spot. The area is surrounded by vegetation and there is also nothing to suggest that the structure was ever used for offering prayers (Namaaz) as neither the area is accessible, nor there is any facility of Wazoo3, which is stated to be an essential step before offering prayer.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC observed that there is discrepancy in the total area of the Masjid in the two documents, i.e., the extract produced by the appellant from the register and the second survey report. The letter dated 17.4.2012 by the Anjuman Committee is based upon hearsay and is not of any binding value.
SC stated that there is no evidence at any given point of time that the structure was being used as a mosque. There is no allegation or proof of either of dedication or user or grant which can be termed as a waqf within the meaning of the Act. The report of the experts is relevant only to the extent that the structure has no archaeological or historical importance. In the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers/Namaaz.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “there is nothing on record that such decision if any, was arrived at after associating the writ petitioner. It is always open to the State as lessor to exercise the powers conferred in it by the lease deed after complying the principles of natural justice and on good and sufficient grounds. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.”
Case Title: Waqf Board, Rajastan v. Jindal Saw Limited & Ors.
Bench: J. Hemant Gupta and J. V. Ramasubramanian
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2788 OF 2022
Decided on: 29th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
