High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 05 UK CK 0065

SHAH MANSOOR AZAZ SABRI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 May 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1304 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 539 words

Sudhanshu Dhulia, JÂ Â Â

1.

Presently before this Court is a matter relating to an agricultural land, which is matter of dispute between the two parties i.e. the petitioner and the

Uttarakhand Waqf Board. The said land is a part of Village “Piran Kaliyar Sharifâ€​, which is in tehsil “Roorkeeâ€​, District Haridwar.Â

2.

The consolidation proceedings were initiated in the said village in the year 1967 and on certain agricultural land, the rights of the petitioner were

declared as “owner†of the property. The matter went in appeal and thereafter in revision and ultimately the revisional authority decided the

revision in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the waqf board filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 135 of 2006 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 134 of 2006

before this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed on 15.02.2014. Aggrieved, the waqf board preferred an S.L.P. before the Apex Court, which was

dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2014. Thereafter review petitions were filed by the waqf board before this Court. This Court vide order dated

26.02.2005 dismissed the review petitions. Again, the waqf board challenged the order dated 26.02.2015 before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing

an S.L.P. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. vide order dated 07.08.2015. Thereafter a curative petition was filed by the waqf board.

3.

During the pendency of the curative petition, an order dated 28.04.2016 was passed by the Chief Secretary to the District Magistrate, Haridwar

directing that since curative petition filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Bord is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court, till the final decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, the illegal sale/construction on the property of Piran-E-Kaliyar Dargah Sharif be strictly prohibited and status quo be

maintained. Thereafter the Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Government of Uttarakhand passed an order on 30.04.2016 directing the Joint

Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar to take action against the illegal construction over the property of Piran-E-Kaliyar Dargah Sharif. These are the two

orders, which are challenged before this Court.

4.

Subsequent to the orders dated 28.04.2018 and 30.04.2018, this Court has been informed that curative petition filed by the waqf board has also

been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Since, the impugned orders dated 28.04.2016 and 30.04.2016 were passed on the reasoning and

basis that a curative petition was pending and as since now the curative petition has been dismissed, the impugned orders have no relevance, the

learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Tapan Singh would argue.Â

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Both the orders dated

28.04.2016 and 30.04.2016 are hereby quashed. For the remaining prayer, the petitioner shall move a representation before the Secretary concerned,

who after being satisfied with the claim of the petitioner on the land which has been declared in the ownership of the petitioner in the consolidation

proceedings, as affirmed by this Court as well, pass an appropriate order therein. This is being said as an apprehension has been raised by the learned

Senior Counsel for the Waqf Board Sri Tanveer Alam Khan that in the garb of certain orders, the petitioner is stating claim on property which is not in

ownership of the petitioner.   Â