J&K&L High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 1985 Waqf Notification Allegedly Covering Government Institutions, Public Utilities & Forest Department
Court dismisses plea against 1985 SRO notifying waqf properties in Poonch which allegedly had declared public lands such as Government Degree College grounds, Parade Grounds, roads, and even land belonging to the Forest Department as Waqf property
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1985 notification declaring several Dams, Forest department land, government properties, in Tehsil Poonch as Waqf properties, holding that the petitioners lacked locus standi and had approached the Court after an inordinate delay of over three decades.
The petitioners had assailed SRO 320 dated 31-08-1985, issued under the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978, whereby a list of Waqf properties pertaining to eleven villages in Tehsil Poonch was published. They sought quashing of the notification and consequential revenue entries, alleging that various Government lands and public utility properties in the impugned SRO, including Government Airfield Ground, Government Degree College ground, Government Media Complex, Government Parade Ground, Deputy Commissioner’s Office and residence, Government schools, PWD roads, and other public lands were wrongly and fraudulently declared as Wakaf properties.
The petitioners were Satish Sasan, President of Shri Sanatan Dharma Sabha, Poonch, Sanjay Raina, an advocate and social activist, and Hardev Lal, a local social worker and prominent citizen of Poonch.
Accordingly, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “…The petitioners have not placed on record any material to establish their legal interest in the properties in question, which are admittedly notified as Wakaf properties. Mere assertion that petitioner No. 1 is President of a Sabha, petitioner No. 2 is a social activist, and petitioner No. 3 is a prominent citizen, does not confer upon them any enforceable legal right so as to maintain the present writ petition. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved persons having the locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court”.
“From a bare perusal of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners have neither pleaded nor demonstrated as to how any of their legal, fundamental, or statutory rights have been infringed by issuance of the impugned SRO or by the consequential actions taken by the respondents. The pleadings are conspicuously silent with regard to any personal, direct, or legally enforceable injury suffered by the petitioners. In absence of infringement of any legally protected right, the very foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is rendered unsustainable”, further observed.
None appeared for the petitioner, and Monika Kohli, Senior AAG appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners claimed they became aware of the implications of the notification only in 2017, when eviction notices were issued under the J&K Wakafs Act to certain government departments and institutions. It was contended that the notification was issued without proper inquiry under the statute
The State authorities and Auqaf Islamia, Poonch, opposed the petition, arguing that the notification was issued strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and was duly published in the Government Gazette in 1985. They asserted that the properties had long been recognized as Waqf properties and that the notification had attained finality decades ago.
It was further contended that the petitioners had no personal or legal interest in the properties and that disputed questions of fact regarding title and character of land could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the petitioners failed to demonstrate how any of their legal, fundamental, or statutory rights were infringed by the issuance of the impugned SRO. The pleadings did not disclose any direct or personal injury suffered by them, the Court said.
Placing reliance on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court on locus standi, the Court reiterated that only a person who has suffered a legal injury can maintain a writ petition. Strangers to the dispute cannot invoke writ jurisdiction merely on general assertions of public interest, particularly when no public interest litigation was properly framed, it noted.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and Another 2010 SCC 14 588, the Court emphasised that matters pertaining to Waqf properties are required to be raised before the Waqf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act.
The Court held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and unexplained delay defeats equity and entertaining such a belated challenge to the impugned notification would unsettle long-settled rights and legal positions, which is impermissible in law.
Without entering into the merits of the allegations, the Court concluded that the petition suffered from lack of locus standi, involved disputed factual issues, and was barred by delay and laches.
Cause Title: Satish Sasan & Ors. v. State of J&K&L & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:550]
Appearances:
Petitioner: None
Respondent: Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG., Ayjaz Lone, Advocate.