The Supreme Court on June 4 dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Waqf Board seeking possession of a pre-independence gurudwara in Oldenpur village, Shahdara, as waqf property. The Court observed that the Board should have withdrawn its claim once records confirmed that a religious structure had been functioning on the land since 1948.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict on a 2012 appeal filed by the Delhi Waqf Board, challenging a Delhi High Court ruling from September 24, 2010. The High Court had held that the property was in the possession of the late Hira Singh, who had purchased it from Mohammad Ahsan in 1953.
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court stated, “The records show a gurudwara has been functioning on the property since Partition. Once a religious structure exists, you should have relinquished your claim on your own.”
Represented by senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose, the Waqf Board argued that the High Court had overturned consistent findings by the trial court, which had ruled in the Board’s favour in October 1982 and again in February 1989. Ghose maintained that the property had been dedicated as waqf land since time immemorial, and witnesses had testified that a mosque once stood there before “some sort of a gurudwara” was constructed on it. However, the bench interrupted Ghose, stating, “It is not some sort of gurudwara. There is a fully functional gurudwara on the site.”
The Waqf Board claimed that the disputed property was officially notified as waqf land on December 3, 1970, with a subsequent correction issued on April 29, 1978, and published in the Delhi Gazette on May 18, 1978. According to the Board’s records, the site was listed as “Masjid Takia Babbar Shah.”
However, the Delhi High Court, in its 2010 judgment, noted that the defendant, Hira Singh, had been in possession of the property since 1947–48. While acknowledging that Singh had not produced any formal title deed to prove ownership, the court emphasized that this did not benefit the Waqf Board, which had the burden to independently prove its own case to obtain possession.
The High Court also pointed out that the Board failed to specify when the property began functioning as a mosque, which was significant since Singh had directly denied this claim in his written statement. Although the Board presented witness testimonies asserting that the mosque had been constructed by the Muslim owners and that Singh had occupied the property unlawfully since 1948, the court remained unconvinced.
Relying on a 1979 Supreme Court ruling in the Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan case, the High Court noted that merely including a property in a gazette notification under the Waqf Act, 1954, does not override the rights of a non-Muslim in possession, unless the person falls under the category of a “person interested in a wakf” as defined in Section 3(h) of the Act.
Singh argued that the premises had been under the care of a Gurudwara Managing Committee. He also pointed out that the Waqf Board had previously filed two suits regarding the property, both of which were withdrawn in 1970 and 1978. Furthermore, he cited Section 64 of the Limitation Act, stating that any suit for recovery of possession must be filed within 12 years from the date the right to sue arises. In this case, since the Board filed its suit in December 1980—more than three decades after Singh took possession—the claim was legally time-barred.
