Delhi, India: The Government of India (GoI) has opposed Delhi Waqf Board’s (DWB) plea moved before the Delhi High Court challenging the government’s decision to “absolve” the board from all matters concerning the 123 properties. The GoI has informed the Court that it acquired the properties between 1911-1914 and the properties were mutated in the government’s name.
It is pertinent to note that the said properties are located in Delhi’s VVIP areas, such as Connaught Place, Mathura Road, Lodhi Road, Man Singh Road, Pandara Road, Ashoka Road, Janpath, Parliament House, Karol Bagh, Sadar Bazaar, Darya Ganj and Jangpura.
The GoI’s affidavit calls the DWB’s petition “wholly without merit” and should be “rejected at the threshold.” The affidavit said that the DWB has no stake in the 123 properties and that it has no intention to substantiate its claim over them.
The GoI submitted that the 123 properties were part of land acquisition proceedings between 1911 and 1914. The GoI acquired the properties after the payment of due compensation for creating infrastructure, after which it took possession and the properties were mutated in its name.
The affidavit states, “…admittedly, the property so acquired were thereafter used for the purposes of creating infrastructure and buildings etc. that are now identified as the Urban scape of Delhi. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegation on behalf of the Petitioners that they have always retained possession is clearly misconceived.”
Furthermore, the GoI stated that the DWB has repeatedly “attempted to seek a restraint” on the Two Member Committee from functioning and that the same was rejected by the court. The GoI also submitted that merely because certain properties were leased to various person does not ipso-facto mean that the properties were converted into Waqf properties.
“It is ex-facie apparent, therefore, that the Petitioner has no interest whatsoever in the said properties, inasmuch as it has not even cared to appear before the Committee and place on record its objections. In the circumstances, the letter dated 08.02.2023 merely states the obvious i.e. that ex-facie the Petitioner has no say whatsoever in the so called Waqf properties that are the subject matter of consideration by the Two member committee,” the affidavit said.
However, the DWB has argued that the GoI’s powers to take over the 123 properties is not traceable to the Waqf Act, which is a complete code governing all Waqf’s properties and has an overriding effect. Furthermore, the DWB argued that the GoI has given “flimsy reasons” for the DWB’s failure to substantiate its claim over the properties as the DWB did not file objections before the Two Member Committee. The DWB also argued that the GoI’s decision was communicated without putting the Two Member Committee’s recommendations in the public domain.
First Attempt to Take Government Properties
The colonial government acquired the said properties and the GoI inherited the properties whose ownership after independence. In 1970, the 123 government properties were notified as “waqfs” in the Delhi Gazette on April 16, 1970, and December 31, 1970, under the Waqf Act 1954. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and L&DO challenged these notifications and filed declaratory suits claiming ownership of these government properties.
Congress’s Bid to Transfer 123 Properties
In 1974, the Congress government constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of SMH Burney to consider the issues related to the government properties claimed to be waqfs and make recommendations. It is pertinent to note that SMH Burney was the DWB Chairman then.
On March 23, 1976, the Burney Committee submitted its report, declaring 123 government properties as “waqfs” and making certain recommendations. The Burney Committee recommended that the Congress government hand over the “waqf properties” to the DWB. The Committee also recommended that the GoI compensate the DWB for “graveyards where graves are not in existence”, after which the DWB will withdraw their claims.
In Savyasachi K Sahai v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 7955/2015], the Delhi High Court observed, “It is noteworthy thus that the Burney Committee report, which is dated 23rd March 1976 makes no reference to any construction of a mosque or dargahs on the subject land and only refers to a Muslim graveyard.”
On January 31, 1984, the Congress government decided to transfer 123 government properties to the DWB in a Cabinet Meeting through a perpetual lease for a nominal annual rent of Rs. 1/- per acre. However, the Indraprastha Vishwa Hindu Parishad (IVHP) challenged the Congress government’s decision before its implementation. Therefore, the IVHP filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court [WP (C) No. 1512/1984] to challenge the Congress government’s order to lease the government properties to DWB perpetually.
2014: UPA Denotifies 123 Government Properties
On March 2, 2014, the UPA government decided to transfer 123 government properties to the DWB in a Cabinet Meeting. Accordingly, on March 5, 2014, the UPA government withdrew from the acquisition of the said government properties u/s 93 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, which allowed the DWB to claim ownership of the said government properties. The VHP filed a complaint with the ECI and moved the Delhi High Court against the UPA government’s decision to withdraw from the acquisition of 123 government properties two months before the UPA government’s term ended.
NDA’s Bid to Take Back Government Properties
In 2016, the NDA Government constituted the One Member Committee, headed by judicial officer JR Aryan, to review the UPA government’s decision related to the denotification of said government properties and their subsequent transfer to the DWB. However, the One Member Committee’s report was held “inconclusive.” Therefore, in 2018, the NDA government constituted the Two Member Committee to reassess the status of the 123 government properties.
On February 8, 2023, the L&DO absolved the DWB from all matters pertaining to the 123 government properties. The L&DO’s letter claimed that the Two Member Committee gave the DWB opportunities to “appear before the Committee or to file representation/written statement/objection” in support of their claim to the 123 government properties as “waqf properties.” However, the letter continued that “no objections/representation or submission was submitted” by the DWB to the Two Member Committee.
The L&DO’s letter concluded, “It is evident from the above facts that Delhi Waqf Board does not have any stake in the listed properties, neither have they shown any interest in the properties nor filed any objections or claims. It is, therefore, decided to absolve Delhi Waqf Board from all matters pertaining to ‘123 Waqf Properties.’ Physical inspection of all 123 properties shall also be carried out.”
