The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom challenging the trial court’s order permitting the State to amend its written statement in an ongoing civil suit. The Court observed that the Madarsa had encroached upon land belonging to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and described the case as “a classic case where the land of NHAI has been encroached upon by the plaintiff.”
The judgment was delivered on 12 May 2025 by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal in Matters Under Article 227 No. 2495 of 2016.
Background
The petitioner had instituted Original Suit No. 9 of 2011 against the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the demolition of a structure alleged to be part of a waqf property. The petitioner claimed to be the owner and landlord of the property, which had been let out to the police department for ₹34 per month. It was stated that a police outpost (chauki) was situated on the premises and that it had become non-functional after a new building was constructed for the police station.
In the suit, the petitioner contended that the premises also included a madrasa and a masjid, both part of a waqf, and that the functioning of the madrasa depended on community contributions.
The respondents filed a written statement accepting the existence of a rental agreement but denying all other claims. They later sought to amend their written statement in 2014 after receiving official communications from the National Highway Division indicating that the property in question was situated on land belonging to National Highway No. 73.
Respondents’ Amendment and Petitioner’s Objection
The trial court allowed the amendment application on 22 May 2015. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Revision No. 107 of 2015, which was dismissed on 18 March 2016. The present writ petition was then filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the amendment sought by the defendants amounted to withdrawing admissions made earlier, thereby altering the defence and prejudicing the petitioner’s case. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hiralal vs. Kalyan Mal (1998 AIR SC 618).
The State countered that the amendment did not constitute withdrawal of any admission but was based on new facts that came to light after communications from the National Highway Division revealed that the land belonged to NHAI and had been earmarked for road widening under the National Highways Development Programme Phase-IV B.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
After reviewing the submissions and the records, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed:
“It is a classic case where the land of NHAI has been encroached upon by the plaintiff and Madarsa along with Masjid and certain other constructions have been raised and the property is being claimed to be a ‘waqf’.”
The Court noted that there was no documentary proof or registration to establish the property as waqf. Citing the Waqf Act, 1995, the Court emphasized that without valid dedication or registration, the claim to waqf status was unsustainable.
It also rejected the argument based on Hiralal, holding that the amendment did not amount to retraction of any prior admission, as the respondents had only come to know of the true ownership after receiving official letters in 2014.
The Court expressed surprise that the plaintiff had constructed on National Highway land and was collecting rent:
“This Court is surprised to note that the plaintiff has made construction over the land of National Highways and had let out the structure to different persons and is realizing the rent treating it to be property of waqf Madarsa.”
Decision
Concluding that the trial court rightly allowed the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and the revisional court had correctly upheld it, the High Court found no grounds for interference.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Case Title: Waqf Madarsa Qasimul Uloom v. State of U.P. & Others
- Case No.: Matters under Article 227 No. 2495 of 2016
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Janardan Mishra, Rajni Kant Chaube
- Counsel for Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.)
