The Waqf Board’s contentious move to declare the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) headquarters, popularly known as ‘Muglisara’ (Mughal Sarai), as waqf property has been invalidated. Initially approved partially in November 2021, the Waqf Board’s decision faced legal opposition from the municipality, leading to a protracted legal battle. Finally, on April 3, 2024, the Waqf Tribunal rendered a verdict dismissing the board’s claim, deeming it illegal.
In 2016, a petition was lodged seeking to designate the SMC’s main building, commonly referred to as ‘Mughal Sarai’ in Surat, as ‘Humayun Sarai’. Abdullah Jarullah of Surat filed the petition, citing Section 36 of the Waqf Act and contending that the SMC building should be registered as Waqf property. The building was registered as waqf property in 2021, partially favouring the petitioner, thus transferring administration from SMC to the Gujarat State Waqf Board.
The petition asserted that the edifice, constructed during Shah Jahan’s era, was bequeathed to his daughter, Jahanara Begum, in jagir. Built by Shah Jahan’s confidant Ishaq Baig Yazdi alias Haqeeqat Khan in 1644, at a cost of Rs 33,081, it was initially named ‘Humayun Sarai’ and intended for Haj pilgrims due to Surat’s strategic significance as a port city. Relying on Sharia law, the petitioner argued for the waqf board’s jurisdiction over the property, citing a Supreme Court ruling that once a property is vested in waqf, it remains so.
Additionally, 17 documents were submitted attesting to the building’s usage as a pilgrim’s lodge until 1867, after which it served as the municipality’s office from 1961 and subsequently became SMC’s headquarters.
Despite objections from SMC officials, the Waqf Board endorsed Jarullah’s plea, prompting SMC’s challenge before the Waqf Tribunal. Advocate Kaushik Pandya represented SMC in presenting their case before the tribunal.
The tribunal’s rebuke of the Waqf Board was stern. It remarked that since the building was constructed using port taxes and revenue, it couldn’t be considered Mughal rulers’ self-acquired property, thus precluding its waqf status.
Notably, it emphasised that while the petitioner submitted photocopies of documents, these weren’t admissible as per the Evidence Act. The tribunal also denounced the board’s attempt to register the property as ‘Humayun Sarai,’ highlighting that no such structure existed in Surat’s Ward No. 11, where the property is situated. Despite awareness among board members and officials regarding the building’s historical nomenclature as ‘Mughal Sarai,’ the board recklessly labelled it otherwise, tarnishing its reputation.
Moreover, the tribunal discredited the petitioner’s claim of being the mutawalli (trustee) of the property, terming it a criminal act.
Consequently, the tribunal invalidated the Waqf Board’s order, decreeing that the property shall be recognised as ‘Mughal Sarai.’ The SMC, represented by advocate Kaushik Pandya and its Law Committee, emerged victorious in the legal battle, affirming the municipality’s ownership over its headquarters.
Naresh Rana, chairman of SMC’s law committee, hailed the collective effort, asserting that justice prevailed through diligent examination of documents and legal advocacy.
Comments