Latest news with #HiraSingh
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC rejects Delhi Waqf Board's claim over gurdwara: ‘Religious structure already functioning there… should relinquish claim'
The Supreme Court Wednesday rejected the Delhi Waqf Board's claim over a gurdwara in the Capital while observing that the Board should have relinquished its claim once it was clear that the Sikh religious shrine existed there since independence. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma was hearing a 2012 appeal by the Board challenging a September 24, 2010, order of the Delhi High Court dismissing its claim. The counsel appearing for the Waqf Board said it had filed a suit for possession against the defendant Hira Singh. The plea claimed that the property in dispute, i.e., a mosque at Oldenpur Village, Shahadra, is waqf property and has been used as a waqf since time immemorial. The counsel pointed out that the trial court decided in its favour, and this was confirmed by the appellate court in 1989. However, on second appeal, a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit. He submitted that the lower courts had ruled there was a mosque at the site, but now 'some kind of gurdwara is there.' Justice Sharma said, 'not some kind of, (but) a proper functioning gurdwara. Once there is a gurdwara, let it be. A religious structure is already functioning there. You should yourself relinquish that claim, you see.' Opposing the Board's claim over the property, defendant Hira Singh had contended that it is not a waqf property and that the owner, Mohd Ahsaan, had sold it to him in 1953. He said the premises in dispute was being used as a gurdwara. Ruling against the Board, the HC single-judge had said, 'Oral and documentary evidence establishes that the suit property was private property. There is no evidence forthcoming to substantiate the submission of the plaintiff that, thereafter, there was a permanent dedication of the suit property by the owner as a waqf property… A mere bald statement in the plaint that this property was being used since time immemorial as a waqf property was not sufficient to establish this plea; this has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses of the plaintiff on oath.' The HC added that the Board's star witness 'has admitted that this gurdwara is functioning in this property since Partition, i.e., since 1947…' The HC had added that the documents 'show that this property was privately owned. There was no intention to create a waqf; the intention and user have to be coupled.' It said defendant Hira Sigh 'was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48. It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff, who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession.'
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court dismisses Delhi Waqf Board's claim over gurudwara property
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking possession of a pre-independence gurudwara as waqf property, observing that the Board should have relinquished its claim once records showed that a religious structure has been functioning on the land since 1948. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, sitting during the partial court working days, passed the order while deciding a 2012 appeal filed by the Board, challenging an order of September 24, 2010 by the Delhi high court, which held the property to be in possession of late Hira Singh, who had purchased the property from Mohammad Ahsan in 1953. Dismissing the appeal, the court said, 'The records show there has been a gurudwara functioning since partition. Once a religious structure is there, you should yourself relinquish your claim.' The Waqf Board represented by senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose said that the high court disturbed the concurrent findings on fact by the trial court, first decided in October 1982, followed by another decision in February 1989, both decided in the Board's favour. He said that the property has been since time immemorial dedicated as waqf property and witnesses in the suit deposed that there was a mosque that existed and 'some sort of a gurudwara' came to be built over that. The bench interjected Ghose and said, 'It is not some sort of gurudwara. There is a fully functional gurudwara there,' referring to the site in question located in village Oldenpur, Shahdara. The Board had claimed that the property in question has been used as waqf since time immemorial and was notified in the notification of gazette on December 3, 1970 and subsequently corrected by another notification of April 29, 1978 published in the Delhi Gazette on May 18, 1978. As per the Waqf Board records, the property in question was notified as 'Masjid Takia Babbar Shah'. The high court judgment had decided in favour of late Hira Singh as it concluded, 'The defendant (Singh) was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48.' At the same time, the court had said, 'It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff (Waqf Board) who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession.' Further, the high court noted that though the Board claimed it to be waqf property, no dates were given as to from which date the property was being used as a masjid. 'This assumes special relevance as the defendant (Singh) in his written statement had specifically controverted this stand.' The Board had relied on deposition of witnesses who attested to the fact that the mosque was constructed by the Muslims, who were the owners of the property, and the defendant occupied it illegally since 1948. Further, the high court relied upon a 1979 Supreme Court decision in Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan case where the top court held that where a stranger who is a non-Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right, title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely because the property is included in the list published under the Act. Going by this verdict, the high court held that the gazette notification of the property being waqf 'would not be binding upon a stranger or a person who does not fall in the category of 'person interested in a wakf' as defined under Section 3(h) of the Act. Singh had pointed out that the premises in dispute used as a Gurdwara is being managed by the Gurudwara Managing Committee. It was further stated that the Waqf Board had in the past filed two suits that were withdrawn in the year 1970 and 1978. He further pointed out under Section 64 of the Limitation Act, a suit for recovery of possession of property has to be filed within 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrued. In the present case, the Waqf Board filed the suit in December 1980, which was time barred.
