Latest news with #AncientMonumentsPreservationAct
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
District Collectors to have wide powers in registering new Waqf properties and deciding on Waqf claims on government properties
The District Collectors will have a crucial role in registering new Waqf properties and looking into complaints of government properties being identified or declared as Waqf, according to the draft Waqf rules. The Union government has sought the views of the State governments and the State Waqf Boards on the draft rules for the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which was passed by Parliament in April. The Rules will come into force once they are notified in the Gazette of India. The Collector shall inquire into the genuineness and validity of the application for registering a new Waqf in accordance with the revenue laws and confirm that the Waqif (the one who is making the Waqf) is a lawful owner of the property and competent to dedicate it as a Waqf. The Collector will also ascertain that the proposed property is not a government property, a protected monument or protected area under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 or the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, and does not belong to Scheduled Tribes, according to the draft rules. Kerala had been keenly awaiting the introduction of the Rules as Kiran Rijiju, the Union Minister for Minority Affairs, had stated earlier this year that the enactment of the Rules would help the Munambam residents in their legal fight for restoring the revenue rights of their holdings. The residents had opposed the decision of the Kerala Waqf Board in notifying the land as a Waqf property. Two petitions challenging the decision of the Board are pending before the Waqf Tribunal. The residents, who claimed that they had purchased the holding from Farook College, Kozhikode, have been protesting for 240 days. Portal, database The 15-point Rules also speak about setting up a portal and a database for filing the details of Waqf and registration of new Waqf. There shall be provisions for real-time monitoring of registration of new Waqf and filing the details of the Waqf, court cases and dispute resolution and resources management. The District Collector can order an inquiry when it comes to the notice of the official that any government property has been identified or declared as a Waqf. The designated officer shall hear all persons concerned or any person having any interest in the property, including the government and mutawalli of the Waqf and ask them to submit their claims and counter-claims within a specified period. The inquiry should be completed within one year, say the draft rules. Kerala government has sought time to file its response.
Hans India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
'Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 designed to capture properties', petitioners in Supreme Court
New Delhi: The petitioners challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the contentious amendments introduced to the waqf law are designed to "capture" properties through an executive and non-judicial process. 'The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act has been framed for purposes of 'protection of waqfs', but, in reality, it is designed to capture waqf through a process which is non-judicial and executive,' submitted senior advocate Kapil Sibal before a bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. Explaining the nature of waqf properties, Sibal said that it is an endowment to Allah (the god) by private individuals, incapable of further transfer in line with the principle that 'once a waqf, always a waqf'. However, under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, if an encroacher raises a dispute, the waqf property will lose its very nature till the dispute is decided, he added. 'The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act is a complete departure from the past legislations on waqf. It is for the first time, under the 2025 Amendment Act, in case of non-registration, the property will not be regarded as property,' contended Sibal, adding that though previous legislations required registration of waqfs, but did not mandate any adverse consequences in cases of non-registration except for removal of mutawalli. The senior counsel highlighted that legislations like the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, etc., were introduced for better protection of waqf properties but did not interfere with their waqf status. 'For example, say, Jama Masjid or any other place of worship. The government can say it intends to preserve the property and declare the property an 'ancient monument'. But the property won't lose its character, and it doesn't mean that you can go and pray there. No ownership was transferred to the government. You couldn't stop the user of the waqf property for the purposes of dedication,' said Sibal. Sibal argued that before the enactment of the recent amendment to the Waqf Act, the right to religious worship was preserved even under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. He reiterated that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is meant for 'complete takeover' of the waqf properties, including ownership. He further questioned the validity of the recently introduced provision providing the requirement of five years of practice as a Muslim before the creation of a waqf. 'This requirement is per se unconstitutional. This (creation of waqf) is a right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution,' argued Sibal. He highlighted that the majority of members in the Central Waqf Council could be non-Muslims if the Union government so chooses under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. 'The balance of convenience is in our favour, and irreparable injury will be done if these provisions are activated. If I cannot create a waqf, unless I satisfy the 5-year Muslim requirement, it is an immediate injury and irreparable,' submitted Sibal. The CJI Gavai-led Bench is hearing the arguments of the parties on the question of the interim stay on the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In an earlier hearing, after the apex court hinted at passing a stay order, the Union government had assured the top court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf by user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board. It had granted a week to the Centre and state governments and the Waqf Boards to file their preliminary reply. The apex court decided to treat five writ petitions as lead cases, apart from ordering the registry to rename the cause titles of the proceedings as "In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025". The petitioners have contended that the amendments introduced to the Waqf Act are discriminatory and infringed upon the fundamental rights of the Muslim community. Conversely, six BJP-ruled states have backed the Union government, supporting the amendments as constitutionally valid and necessary. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after it was passed in both Houses of Parliament following intense debate. The Centre, in a preliminary affidavit, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitions, arguing that the impugned law does not infringe upon constitutional guarantees.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC nod to shift Yale tomb to make way for court registry
Chennai: Joseph Yale's tomb near the old law college building on the Madras high court campus is to be removed as a division bench has upheld a single judge's 2023 order allowing its relocation. A five-storey building for the court registry has been planned there. Holding that the tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hynmer did not qualify as an ancient monument under the law, the bench of Justice M Sundar and Justice N Sathish Kumar dismissed two writ appeals -- one by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the other by Senior Advocate T Mohan. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai In its judgment on Wednesday, the court said the notification issued in 1921 under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, erroneously referred to the tomb as that of Elihu Yale. Actually, the tomb contains the remains of Yale's three-year-old son Jacca David Yale and his friend Joseph Hynmer, who had no known contribution to India's heritage. The court said Yale's contribution to Connecticut College, later Yale University, held no relevance to India. Since Yale University started its Tamil Studies department only in 2004, the tomb built between 1684 and 1688 had no significance, and its indirect Tamil link was weak and irrelevant. The court noted Yale left Madras in 1699 and was buried in England. He worked for the East India Company in spice and gold trade, with only a tenuous link to the law college site. The Bench expressed confidence that authorities would follow the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and preserve the campus's aesthetics. It added that while Article 49 mandates monument protection, such protection must rest on objective criteria.
Indian Express
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court finds no error in Allahabad HC impleading Centre and ASI in Shahi Idgah mosque case
The Supreme Court on Monday found no error in the Allahabad High Court's decision to implead the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the Mathura site they claim to be Lord Krishna's birthplace. 'One thing is clear. The amendment to the original plaint by the Hindu plaintiffs has to be allowed,' said Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, presiding over a two-judge bench. The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, was hearing an appeal by the mosque committee against the March 5, 2025, high court order allowing the Hindu side to amend its petition and to add the Centre and ASI as parties to the case. The Hindu side had sought to implead the ASI saying the mosque was under the agency and hence exempt from the application of the Places of Worship Act 1991, which requires preserving the religious character of a place of worship as it was on August 15, 1947. On April 4, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Hindu petitioners. Hearing the plea again on Monday, the CJI said, 'This plea is absolutely wrong…The High Court should have allowed the amendment to add the parties to the suit.' The court added that it would, however, assess whether the order was effective and also its impact on the mosque side seeking the rejection of the plaint. The counsel for the Muslim side said there was also the issue of whether the suit by the Hindu plaintiffs was barred and whether the high court had the jurisdiction to entertain it. To a query from the Supreme Court, the mosque committee's counsel said that it was yet to file its written statement on the amendment plea. The court directed that the written statement might be filed too. The Hindu side had approached the Allahabad High Court seeking impleadment of the ASI and the Centre pointing to the existence of a notification under sub-section (3) of section 3 of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (VII of 1904) published in the official gazette on December 27, 1920, declaring the property as a protected monument. The Hindu plaintiffs contended that the property being a centrally protected monument, they had to place on record new facts for the adjudication of the case.
