Delhi HC asks Waqf Board to file separate plea against Centre's decision to delist properties; refuses interim relief
text_fields
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday denied to pass an interim order on a plea of the Delhi Waqf Board.
The court also asked the Board to file a different petition challenging the Centre's decision to delist the 123 Waqf properties.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri refused to pass the order in the matter that has been under dispute for a long time.
The Board had filed a petition last year. The court has now listed the application along with the pending petition filed for further hearing on August 4.
On February 8, the Waqf Board filed an application through advocate Wajeeh Safiq challenging the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs' letter.
Delhi Waqf Board chairman Amanatullah Khan said that the 123 properties have been with the Waqf Board for a long time and the Centre was bypassing the law and courts in trying to “occupy it forcibly”.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for Delhi Waqf Board during the hearing today, submitted that there is no source of power with the Union of India to absolve the Board from the properties in question.
He contended that the properties were clearly demarcated through four surveys conducted way back in 1970, 1974, 1976 and 1984 and were later assented by the President of India that they were waqf properties.
“Since 1911 and thereafter till date, when the letter has come up, these properties are admittedly waqf properties, concerned with the waqf board, to be controlled and managed by the board under the Act [Delhi Waqf Act]…,” he said.
Mehra submitted that under the complete statutory scheme, there is no concept of the Central or State Government to absolve the properties from the Board.
“Any order of this seriousness always starts with some source of power. That, in this letter, is completely missing,” he said.
Additional Solicitor General, Chetan Sharma appearing for the Centre submitted that the prayers in the application filed by the Board are totally beyond the scope of the pending petition.
Sharma cited various orders passed by the court dismissing the Board's application seeking stay of the two-member committee -- looking into the status of the properties, and a revision plea.
