HC directs illegal occupant to pay Rs 15 lakh to Delhi Waqf Board for occupancy

New Delhi [India], March 13 : The family of an Imam in a mosque cannot claim any rights in the property of the Mosque, as the property vests in the Waqf and the Imam is merely appointed for the purposes of conducting prayers and taking care of the Waqf property, the Delhi High Court said while dismissing a petition seeking the de-sealing of a property next to Masjid Zabta Ganj, near India Gate.
Considering the duration of the illegal occupation of the premises and the location of the property, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs 15,00,000 to the Delhi Waqf Board within a period of eight weeks, the High Court directed.
In addition, a sum of Rs 2,00,000 shall be deposited as costs with the Delhi Waqf Board, within 8 weeks, it added.
Justice Prathiba M Singh in the a judgment said, "The petitioner having been an unauthorized occupant and an encroacher in the subject property has no legs to stand in the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The Petitioner who was the son of the Imam, being merely a family member, has himself occupied and has permitted others to occupy this property for several decades without any rights. An independent Imam was appointed in the said property/mosque in 1981. However, in an illegal manner the Petitioner continued to encroach and occupy the property next to the mosque, the court held.
The bench said that the Imam occupies the property in a capacity that is fiduciary in nature on behalf of the Waqf and any attempt to claim independent rights in the property would be impermissible.
The petitioner and the three individuals whom he represented, were clearly unauthorized occupants and encroachers, who had no right in the said property, the Court said.
The property is a prime property. Photographs have been placed on record which show that unauthorized construction has been carried out. An electricity meter is also visible in the photographs. A number of persons were in occupation of the said property illegally, the Court observed in the judgment of March 6.
In view of the fact that, admittedly, the petitioner has been unable to show any title to the property in question and keeping in mind the nature of the property which is a place of worship allotted to the Waqf, in order to uphold public policy and to curb illegalities of this nature, this Court holds that the Petitioner is liable to pay occupation charges to the Waqf Board for unauthorised occupation as also costs of the litigation, the high court said.
The present petition relates to a prime property located next to the Masjid Zabta Ganj, Man Singh Road, India Gate, New Delhi. The Petitioner, Zahir Ahmed, had sought a direction for de-sealing of the said property, which admittedly consists of one room, kitchen, bathroom, and some space adjacent to the mosque. Further, he seeks a restraint order against alleged harassment being caused to him.
Petitioner further seeks permission to make reconstruction of the said property.
The case of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that he and his family have been living in the said property for several decades and the property was separated from the mosque by a wall constructed between the mosque and the said property.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that in 2005, Mohd. Asad, the current Imam of the Masjid, along with others accused, demolished the wall which separated the said property from the Waqf property/Mosque.
A First Information Report ('FIR') was also registered in this regard by the occupants of the said property. However, it is stated that after the intervention of the police, the petitioner could reconstruct the wall that was demolished. Finally, various orders were passed by this Court in Writ Petitions filed by the occupants as also by the Petitioner leading to proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995.
The Petitioner avers that since 2009 various notices for eviction have been issued by the Waqf Board and eviction orders have been passed by the Waqf Board and the SDM, the details of which have been given in the petition, against the workers/employees of the Petitioner, namely, Zainul, Sainul and Nafees.
As per the Petitioner, no such eviction notices have ever been issued against the Petitioner in respect of the said property. Hence, the Petitioner seeks reinstatement in the said property.
The Court noted that as per the Eviction Order passed by the CEO of the Waqf Board dated 6th March 2009, against Zainul, the Petitioner Zahir Ahmed had appeared on behalf of Zainul and was unable to show any authority under which both Zainul and Zahir Ahmed were occupying the said property.
Accordingly, the CEO of the Waqf Board directed that Zahir Ahmed, Zainul, and all other encroachers were liable to be evicted.
The Petitioner also challenged the Order of 2nd March 2020 directing the occupant to vacate the said property by March 5, 2020, and the Order of 5 March 2020 passed by the SDM, Chanakyapuri.
It was recorded that an eviction drive was undertaken in respect of the said property and the possession of the said property was handed over to the Delhi Waqf Board.
Advocate K Z Khan, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has had continuous and uninterrupted possession of the said property, since the last several decades, and hence the Petitioner was not liable to be dispossessed.
On behalf of the Waqf Board, Advocate Wajeeh Shafiq submitted that the Petitioner's father was discharging the duties of an Imam in the Mosque and he had come into possession of the said property due to his father's position of Imam.
The Mosque was allotted by way of a Gazette notification issued in terms of the agreement registered on 3 July 1945, by the Delhi Administration, in favour of the Delhi Waqf Board.