The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging a 1980 Waqf notification that listed three mosques in Jahangirpuri as Sunni Waqf properties, holding that the petition was not filed with a bona fide motive or in public interest.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said it was “not inclined to entertain” the plea filed by NGO Save India Foundation and dismissed it along with pending applications.
The petitioner assailed a notification dated March 24, 1980, issued by the Delhi Waqf Board, which published certain properties as Sunni Waqf properties, including Moti Masjid, Jama Masjid in Jahangirpuri, and another local mosque.
It was contended that the land on which the mosques stand had been acquired by the Delhi government in 1977 after payment of compensation to the original owners and was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Jahangirpuri. The plea alleged that any construction on such land amounted to illegal encroachment on public land and could not have been enlisted as Waqf property.
The High Court held that the petition was not filed with a bona fide intent and observed that the petitioner was “habitual” in filing petitions in the guise of PILs and had “unnecessarily attempted to rake up the past.”
It noted that the Waqf notification was issued after an inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Waqfs in accordance with law and the list of Waqf properties was published only after examination of the report received from the state government based on such inquiry.
The bench further observed that when an ordinary civil remedy in respect of listed Waqf properties is barred after a stipulated period, entertaining a writ petition after 46 years would be legally impermissible.
Emphasising the need to preserve the sanctity of public interest litigation, the court said the “purity of the stream” of PIL must not be undermined and reiterated that courts are duty-bound to ensure that frivolous or non-bona fide petitions are “nipped in the bud.”
The court also noted that the petition mentioned that the trustee of the petitioner trust, Preet Singh, had allegedly been falsely implicated in criminal cases due to political considerations, but the plea did not disclose any details of such cases.
Counsel for the Delhi Waqf Board opposed the maintainability of the plea, arguing that a challenge to the notification after about 46 years was not permissible and that the list of Waqf properties had been published strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dismissing the PIL, the High Court held that the challenge to the decades-old notification on “flimsy grounds” could not be entertained and declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the matter.
