Supreme Court Rejects Delhi Waqf Board's Claim Over A Property In Shahdara, Notes Existence Of Gurudwara At Site

The Supreme Court today declined to entertain Delhi Waqf Board's claim over a property in Shahdara as "waqf property", noting that a Gurudwara exists at the site.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.

The Court was dealing with the Waqf Board's challenge to a Delhi High Court order of 2010, whereby appeal of the respondent was allowed and the Waqf Board's suit laying claim over the property was dismissed.

Briefly put, the dispute dates back to the 1980s, when the Delhi Waqf Board instituted a suit for possession of the property - a mosque at Village Oldanpur, Shahdara - against respondent-Hira Singh (now deceased). It claimed that the property was a waqf property and was being used as such since time immemorial.

The defendant contested this suit as time-barred and claimed that the property was sold to him by its owner-Mohd. Ahsaan in 1953. He also averred that the property was being used as a Gurdwara, managed by the Gurudwara Managing Committee. Two earlier suits filed by the Board were dismissed as withdrawn on 23.1.1970 and 22.8.1978, the defendant further informed the trial court.

Ultimately, the trial court decided in favor of the Waqf Board and decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court endorsed its findings in 1989. When the respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court, the suit was dismissed, noting that the Board failed to prove that the property was a wakf property.

"Neither the permanent dedication/user since time immemorial of the suit property as a wakf property has been proved and nor does the documentary evidence come to his aid...Defendant was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48", the High Court observed. Aggrieved by this order, the Board approached the Supreme Court in 2012.

Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appeared for Delhi Waqf Board.

Case Title: DELHI WAKF BOARD Versus HIRA SINGH (D) THR.LR. AMARJIT SINGH, C.A. No. 2985/2012