The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has resolved to proceed suo motu in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding alleged unauthorized construction on Waqf property. While the Court discharged the original petitioner to address concerns that the petition might be a “proxy” for other interests, it passed an interim order staying any construction that lacks the requisite legal sanctions from the development authority.
Background
The matter originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ansar Ahmad, raising two primary grievances. First, it was alleged that the Waqf property in question was being misused by private parties (Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 7). Second, the petitioner contended that construction was being carried out on the said premises by a builder without obtaining any permission or sanctioned map from the relevant development authority.
Arguments of the Parties
During the hearing, Sri Pritish Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amal Rastogi, appearing for Opposite Party No. 7 (the builder), raised a preliminary objection. He argued that the representations annexed to the writ petition—which serve as a prerequisite for seeking a writ of mandamus—were submitted by an individual currently challenging the appointment of the Mutawalli in a pending appeal under Section 83(2) of the Act, 1995. Consequently, he contended that the petition “should not be entertained as it appears to be a proxy petition.”
In response to the allegations of unauthorized construction, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, appearing for the Development Authority, informed the Court that a notice had already been issued to Opposite Party No. 7. He noted that, prima facie, the construction was being undertaken without a sanctioned map.
Counsel representing the Waqf Board submitted that the Board had received applications regarding the alleged misuse of the property and that those proceedings were currently underway.
The Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, analyzed the two distinct issues raised. Regarding the misuse of Waqf property, the Court observed that the appropriate remedy lies under the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995. It stated that “the person aggrieved or the one who has locus standi can seek remedy under the aforesaid Act, 1995.”
On the issue of unauthorized construction, the Court found merit in continuing the inquiry. Addressing the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner’s motives, the Bench observed:
“the ends of justice would suffice if the petitioner is discharged from pursuing this matter and we proceed suo-motu as after all firstly opposite party no.7 is a builder and not the Mutawalli nor managing the Waqf.”
The Court emphasized that since the Development Authority had already issued notices—ordinarily done after an inspection—the nature of the construction (whether temporary or permanent) needed to be examined. The Bench decided to focus exclusively on “whether any constructions is being made on the Waqf property by opposite party nos.5 to 7 without getting the map sanctioned assuming it is otherwise permissible in law.”
Decision of the Court
The Court ordered the discharge of the petitioner and directed that the case proceed as a suo motu matter. The name of the petitioner’s counsel is no longer to be shown in the cause list, and the case has been retitled as “In RE: SUO MOTU illegal Construction on Waqf Property.”
The Court passed the following interim directions:
- Stay on Construction: “In the meantime, it is made clear that if any construction is being raised on the Waqf property which requires a sanction under Section 15 of the Act, 1973 then it shall not proceed unless there is a sanction.”
- Assistance from Authority: Sri Ratnesh Chandra, representing the Development Authority, was directed to assist the Court on the next date regarding whether the nature of the construction requires sanction under Section 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 13, 2026.
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Abhishek Singh Lal Gaurav Pratap Singh Rakesh Kumar Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C. Mohammad Tariq Saeed Parvez Akhtar Khan Rajeev Prakash Saxena Ratnesh Chandra Pritish Kumar (Senior Advocate) Amal Rastogi
Case Details:
Case Title: Ansar Ahmad vs. State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 6 Others (Now In RE: SUO MOTU illegal Construction on Waqf Property)
Case No.: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No.342 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy, Justice Manjive Shukla
Date: April 27, 2026
