Delhi District Court
Sageer Ahmed Anr vs Shariq Ansarullah Ors on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. POORVA MEHRA,
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/2016
SAGEER AHMED & ANR. VS. SHARIQ ANSARULLAH &
ORS.
1. Sageer Ahmed,
S/o. Sh. Sadique Ahmed,
R/o D-92, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi.
2. Munsaf, S/o. Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. D-115, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shariq Ansarullah
S/o. Sh. Islamullah Premi,
R/o. E-15, Abul Fazal Enclave,
New Delhi.
2. Tariq Ikramullah
S/o. Sh. Islamullah Premi,
R/o. E-14, Abul Fazal Enclave,
New Delhi.
3. Dr. Shafiq Ahmad
S/o. Sh. Istiqamat Ali,
R/o. 809, Sheesh Mahal,
Azad Market, Delhi-110025.
4. S. M. Naiyer
S/o. Sh. Mohd. Zafar
R/o. C-233, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Okhla, New Delhi-25.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra
Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 1 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
5. Sh. Abdul Wahid
S/o. Late Sh. Sayeed Ahmed,
R/o. Block C-12, H. No.75,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
6. Sh. Asad Asri
S/o. Late Sh. Qamrul Hoda,
R/o. F-138/1, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Near Shaheen Masjid, Jamia Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110025.
7. Mohammad Anwar
S/o. Sh. Saeeduzzafar,
R/o. A-71, Abul Fazal Enclave-I,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025.
8. Kamaluddin Khan
S/o. Sh. Naseeruddin Khan,
R/o. F-A/24B, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
9. Maulana Inamullah
S/o. Mohammad Hadees
R/o. F-146/6, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
10. Adnan Yusuf
S/o. Sh. Farooq Ahmed,
R/o. C-113/5, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
11. Mohd. Mohsin
S/o. Late Mohd. Anis,
R/o. D-102/1, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II,
Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. ........Defendants
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra
Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 2 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST CASES PENDING IN THIS COURT
Date of institution of the suit : 20.04.2015
Judgment reserved on : 23.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, undersigned shall decide one of the oldest suit, pending before the Court, instituted in the year 2015. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking relief of Declaration, Mandatory and Permanent Injunction against Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER PLAINT: -
2. Plaintiffs are stated to be the residents of Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, a predominantly Muslim colony. It is asserted that Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust (hereinafter referred as JMSB Trust), located at F-132, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, was being managed by a committee formed by local residents with mutual consent.
3. It is averred that on 31.03.1985, Defendant No. 1 developed the plotting for the colony. During the sale of CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 3 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 plots to various purchasers at a rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard, he allegedly represented that a piece of land measuring 2800 sq. yards was reserved for the construction of a Jama Masjid, plot of 2500 sq. yards was reserved for a Public Park and plot of 500 sq. yards was reserved for a School. The cost of these community lands was already factored into the price paid by the individual plot buyers.
4. Thereafter, the local residents of the colony collected donations and began constructing the Masjid on a 1000 sq. yard portion of the total 2800 sq. yards reserved for it. The residents claim to have funded the construction and maintenance through their own "hard-earned money" in the name of religion and community welfare.
5. It is alleged by the Plaintiffs against Defendant no.1 that he grabbed the remaining 1800 sq. yards of the land reserved for the Masjid and built a private school for his own personal profit. He sold the 2500 sq. yards intended for the public park and misappropriated the funds for personal use. Furthermore, Defendant no.1 has an "evil eye" upon the existing Masjid structure itself.
6. On 01.01.2025, Plaintiff No.1 donated Rs.200 to individuals seeking funds for the Masjid. Upon reviewing the receipt of the same, Plaintiffs discovered that a Trust had been registered under the name "Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh (Trust)". Upon enquiry, Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No. 1, in conspiracy with Defendants 2, 3, and 4, registered this Trust with himself as the "Settler".
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 4 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
7. It is alleged by the Plaintiffs that the Trust Deed falsely claims that Defendant no.1's mother, Abida Khatoon, donated the land for the Masjid in 1999 and gave him Power of Attorney to construct it. The Plaintiffs contend this is a fabrication to seize control of community property.
8. Next, Plaintiffs have challenged the legitimacy of the private Trust and the actions of Defendant no.1. It is stated that the land was dedicated to the public/community by way of the original 1985 layout plan and that the Defendants are illegally attempting to convert community religious property into private holdings.
9. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants formed a Trust, namely, "Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust", without lawful authority and against the wishes of local residents. Said trust was formed with malafide intention to grab the Masjid, collect funds unauthorizedly and misappropriate public money for personal use.
10. It is, furthermore, stated that on 25.02.2011, the original trust deed was allegedly registered by Defendant no.1 as Settler, Defendant no.2 as Vice Chairman and Defendant no.3 & 4 as Trustees. Thereafter on 30.09.2013, a supplementary trust deed (amendment) was formed wherein, Defendant no.5 was appointed as the new Chairman, Defendant no.6 as Vice Chairman and Defendant nos.7 to 11 as the Trustees.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 5 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
11. Consequently, on 03.04.2015, Plaintiffs made a police complaint against the Defendant nos.1 to 7 regarding forming of an unauthorized Trust to grab the said masjid, for collecting funds without any authority and misappropriating the same. It is alleged that despite the said complaint, no action was taken at that time.
12. It is furthermore alleged that on 14.04.2015, Defendants restrained the Plaintiffs from entering into the Masjid for praying the Namaz and threatened the Plaintiffs to kill them.
13. Hence, the present suit has been filed with the following prayer:
"(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their legal heirs, agents, servants, associates, attorneys, assignees, successors, administrators or any other persons on their behalf, thereby restraining them from any interference in the daily affairs of the said Masjid namely Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh, F-132, Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Part-II, New Delhi and from collecting the money in the name of the said Masjid/ Trust;
(b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction by issuing the direction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, its agents, servants, associates, attorneys, assignees, successors, administrators or any other person on its behalf, to form a new management committee of the said Masjid namely Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh, F-132, Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Part-
II, New Delhi by conducting a fair election CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 6 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 amongst the local residents for looking after the daily affairs of the said Masjid and its maintenance etc.;
(c) Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, its agents, servants, associates, attorneys, assignees, successors, administrators or any other person on its behalf, to declare the Trust formed by the Defendant nos.1 to 4 by the name and style of Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh (Trust) having its office at F-132, Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Part-II, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, got registered with the office of the registrar on 25.02.2011 and also the supplementary Trust Deed for amendment of Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust dated 30.09.2013, as invalid and cancelled; and
(d) pass any other or further order, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper."
SUMMONS: -
14. Summons were duly served upon the Defendants.
Defendants appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed Written Statement.
WRITTEN STATEMENT: -
15. Joint written statements on behalf of Defendant nos.1 & 2 and Defendant nos.3 to 11, were filed in court, wherein, multiple preliminary objections have been raised by the Defendants.
16. In the written statement, filed on behalf of Defendant nos.1 and 2, it is stated that answering Defendants have nothing CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 7 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 to do with the cause of action of the present suit and shall be filing an appropriate application for the deletion of their name.
17. That the Masjid (Mosque) is being managed by the Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust. The Trust was formed in accordance with law and registered in accordance with law. The Answering Defendants have resigned rom the said trust on or around September 2013 and the said fact has already been admitted by the Plaintiffs in their suit.
Therefore, Defendant nos.1 & 2 have been wrongly impleaded as parties.
18. It is stated that Defendant nos. 1 & 2 have nothing to do with the Management and running of the Mosque at present, having resigned from the Trust in September 2013 and they only pray at the said Mosque occasionally.
19. Further, in the joint written statement of Defendant nos.3 to 11, it is stated that present suit is completely malafide. The Plaintiffs have not shown any proof of their representative capacity. They cannot be granted leave of the Court to sue in representative capacity as they are espousing their own vested political interest. The court shall have to test the parameters of the same is accordance with law.
20. It is asserted that the Mosque is being managed by the Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust which was formed and registered in accordance with law. The answering Defendants are the present Trustees of the aforesaid trust.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 8 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
21. The allegations with regard to danger of lives of people due to the formation of the Trust are completely ill- founded, false and malicious.
22. It is further stated that the present suit is a belated counter blast to the suit filed by the Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust through its Trustee Mohammad Anwar (Defendant no.7, herein) in CS (OS) 1991/2013, filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Plaintiffs are closely related to the Defendants in the aforesaid suit. Plaintiff no.2 is the father of Defendant no.4 and similarly, Plaintiff no.1 is the neighbour of Defendant no.1.
23. The cause of action in the present suit is materially similar in nature to the aforesaid suit. The present suit has been initiated with malafide intention of the Plaintiffs and the parameters of law as laid down in Section 91 CPC and Order 1 Rule 8 have not been satisfied.
REPLICATION: -
24. Replication was filed by the Plaintiffs, wherein, they denied the claims of all the Defendants entirely.
ISSUES: -
25. Given the fact the jurisdiction of this court itself being in question by the parties, the following preliminary issue was framed:
Issue no.1: Whether the Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh situated at F-132, Shaheen Bagh, Abul Fazal Part-II, New Delhi (suit property) is not governed by Waqf Act, 1995?
OPP
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra
Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 9 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE: -
26. PW-1: In Plaintiff evidence, Sh. Sageer Ahmed/ Plaintiff no.1 deposed as PW-1 vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/1(OSR), which is copy of Site Plan, Mark A, which is copy of driving license, Ex.PW-1/2(Colly)(OSR) as copy of receipt issued by Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh, Mark B as copy of Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust Registration, Mark C as copy of Trust Deed, Mark D copy of supplementary Trust Deed and Mark E as copy of complaint dated 03.04.2015. PW-1 was cross-examined extensively by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants.
27. PW-2: Sh. Munsaf/ Plaintiff no.2 deposed as PW-2 vide affidavit of evidence exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the documents i.e. his voter ID Card as Mark A (OSR) and copy of site plan as Ex.PW-2/1. PW-2 was also cross-
examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants.
28. Thereafter, vide a separately recorded joint statement, Plaintiffs closed PE.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE: -
29. DW-1: Sh. Kamaluddin Khan, S/o. Sh. Naseeruddin deposed as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-1/A. He was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs. He relied upon the following documents i.e. copy of plaint filed before the CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 10 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bearing case no. CS (OS) 1991/2013 as Mark A, certified copy of the orders from 11.10.2013 to 08.04.2015 as Ex.DW-1/1 (Colly) (12 pages) and copy of judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ-04/SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi as already Ex.D-1 in the cross-examination of PW-2.
30. DW-2: Sh. Maulana Inamullah, S/o. Sh. Mohammad Hadees deposed as DW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-2/A. He was also cross-examined extensively by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs. He relied upon the following documents i.e. copy of plaint filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bearing case no. CS (OS) 1991/2013 already Mark A, certified copy of the orders from 11.10.2013 to 08.04.2015 already Ex.DW-1/1 (Colly) (12 pages) and copy of judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ-04/SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi already Ex.D-1.
31. DW-3: Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Naiyer, S/o. Sh. Mohd. Zafar deposed as DW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-3/A. He was also cross- examined in detail. He also relied upon the following documents i.e. copy of plaint filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bearing case no. CS (OS) 1991/2013 already Mark A, certified copy of the orders from 11.10.2013 to 08.04.2015 already Ex.DW-1/1 (Colly) (12 pages) and copy of judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ-04/SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi already Ex.D-1.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 11 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
32. Thereafter, vide a separately recorded statement, Ld. Counsel for Defendants closed DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
33. Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiffs and Defendants addressed arguments at length. I have heard the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsels for both parties. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
34. It is vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for Defendants that the property being a Waqf property, the present suit filed by Plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is argued that a suit on behalf of a Waqf property can only be filed by Imam or Mutawalli.
35. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs that the present suit is not a suit for declaration of the JMSB as Waqf property. It is simply a suit for injunction. Further, it is submitted that the present Mosque does not fall in the lists of Waqf prepared by the Waqf Board, hence it is not a Waqf property.
36. It is the argued by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs that a perusal of Section 6 and Section 7 of The Waqf Act, 1995 would show that a 'list of Auqaf' is prepared under the Act, as is mentioned in Section 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act. It is only those Waqf which are mentioned in the list are covered under The Waqf Act. The jurisdiction of Tribunal set up under The Waqf Act is applicable to those Waqf which are mentioned in the list of Auqaf prepared by the Survey Commissioner. It is submitted that Jama Masjid, Shaheen CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 12 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 Bagh was never mentioned in any of the lists so prepared by the Survey Commissioners and hence it is not a Waqf property. According to Section 6 of the Waqf Act, the question whether a property which is specified in the list of Auqaf, is a Waqf property or not, or whether such property in the list is Shia Waqf or Sunni Waqf, such question is to be decided by the Waqf Board set up under the Waqf Act. According to Section 7 (6), the Tribunal also has power of assessment of damages for unauthorized occupation of Waqf property and also to penalize such unauthorized occupants for their illegal occupation. According to Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the State Government is to set up Tribunals for the purpose of determination of any dispute or question relating to 'Waqf' or 'Waqf property', eviction of a tenant, determination of rights of the lessor and lessee.
37. However a bare perusal of Section 6 and Section 7 of the Waqf Act would reveal that it mentions those disputes which are to be raised before Waqf Board. It mentions that the question whether a property specified in the list of Auqaf is a Waqf property or not, or is a Shia Waqf or Sunni Waqf is to be decided by the Tribunal. However a perusal of these sections would show that they do not indicate that these are the "only" disputes which may be referred to the Waqf Board. If the intention of the legislature was to ensure that "only" those disputes pertaining to Waqf property which are mentioned in the list are to be decided by the Tribunal, then the word 'only' CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 13 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 would have been mentioned. However the word 'only' is not there. Further in the scheme of the Act, there is nothing to indicate that only those disputes pertaining to Waqf property which are mentioned in "the list" are to be referred to the Tribunal. Hence disputes regarding those Auqaf which are not mentioned in the list of Auqaf prepared by the Commissioner can also be referred to the Tribunal. The definition of disputes regarding Auqaf which is mentioned in section 6 and section 7 of the Waqf Act is an inclusive one. It does not exclude those disputes relating to Waqf property which are not mentioned in the list of Auqaf.
38. Further it is laid down in Section 83 of the Waqf Act that "any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Waqf or Waqf property" is to be decided by the Tribunal. The words "in the list of Auqaf" are absent in Section 83 which clearly indicate that the intention of the legislature was not to confine the jurisdiction of Tribunal under the Act to only those Waqf properties which are mentioned in the list of Auqaf prepared by the Survey Commissioners. Section 84 and Section 85 have also been drafted with a similar intention, as the words "in the list of Auqaf" are also absent in these sections. Hence the argument of Counsel for plaintiff that only those disputes relating to Waqf property can be referred before Tribunal which are mentioned in the list of Auqaf is misconceived. It was also observed in Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari cited as (2022) 4 SCC 414 that :-
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 14 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
"33. A conjoint reading of Sections 6, 7 and 85 would show that the bar of jurisdiction of civil court contained in Section 6(5) and Section 7(2) is confined to Chapter-II, but the bar of jurisdiction under Section 85 is all pervasive.
(iv) A major distinguishing feature between Sections 6(1) and 7 (1) on the one hand and Section 83 on the other hand is that the dispute, question or other matter referred to in Sections 6 and 7 are confined only to what is included in the list of waqfs prepared under Section 4 and published under Section 5. The words "specified ... in the list of waqfs" found in sections 6 (1) and 7(1), are conspicuous by their absence in section 83 (1). Therefore, it is clear that Sections 6 and 7 speak only about two categories of cases, but Section 83 covers the entire gamut of possible disputes in relation to any waqf or waqf property.
34. It is seen that there are 2 limbs to Section
85. The words, "any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf or waqf property" used in the first limb of Section 85, provide a clear indication that the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any dispute and answer any question relating to a waqf or waqf property, including the two questions mentioned in Section 6(1) and 7(1). The words in the second limb of Section namely, "other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal", seek to cover matters which have no relevance to the two questions covered by Section 6(1) and 7(1)."
39. Hence it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of a Waqf Tribunal under The Waqf Act, 1995 is only with respect to those Waqf which are mentioned in the list of auqaf prepared under the Act. The JMSB is not mentioned in the list of auqaf prepared by the Survey Commissioner, itself CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 15 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 is not a ground to say that it is not a 'Waqf' within the definition of Waqf provided under the Act.
What is WAQF under the Waqf Act, 1995
40. The next question that arises for consideration is what is Waqf under the Waqf Act, 1995. The definition of Waqf as is contained in Waqf Act, 1995, Section 3 (r) is as follows:-
"waqf" means the permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes-- a waqf by user but such waqf shall not cease to be a waqf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser; a Shamlat Patti, Shamlat Deh, Jumla Malkkan or by any other name entered in a revenue record;
"grants", including mashrat-ul-khidmat for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable; and a waqf-alal-aulad to the extent to which the property is dedicated for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable, provided when the line of succession fails, the income of the waqf shall be spent for education, development, welfare and such other purposes as recognised by Muslim law, and "waqif" means any person making such dedication;]"
41. This is the definition of Waqf for the purposes of this Act.
However this definition is not exhaustive of the concept of Waqf. The definition of Waqf itself is very vast and there may be different definitions for the purposes of different enactments/ legislations. But for the applicability of The CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 16 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 Waqf Act, 1995, a property must fit in the definition of 'Waqf' as is contained in this Act.
42. The main ingredients of Waqf as per the definition under Waqf Act are :-
(i) Dedication of property for religious, pious or charitable purpose.
(ii) Nature of dedication must be permanent.
(iii) The dedication can made by any person capable of making dedication.
(iv) The subject of dedication must belong to the dedicator or settler.
43. The first and second ingredient are that there must be a dedication of property for a religious or pious purpose recognized under Muslim Law and it must be permanent. There is no specific mode by which property can be dedicated for such a purpose in order to constitute a Waqf. It can be oral, it can be in writing, it can be testamentary or non- testamentary, it can be by way of user. But the dedication must be permanent, clear and unequivocal. Mere intention to dedicate the property permanently for religious or pious purpose is sufficient.
44. Under Muslim Law, two types of Waqf are recognized, i.e. Public Waqf and Private Waqf. Private Waqf is also known as a waqf-alal-aulad. It is a Waqf which is created for a pious, religious or charitable purposes but for the benefit of the family members, children and descendants of the settler. In such a Waqf also, the property dedicated also vests in God according to Sunni school. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Kanta Deb V. Commissioner of CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 17 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa cited as 1981 AIR 798, 1981 SCR (2) 826 that in Waqf-alal-aulad also, the property is dedicated to God, but the property is handled by beneficiaries and the income from the Waqf is used for the maintenance and support of the family of settler. In case the family becomes extinct, then the Waqf becomes a public Waqf. The Waqf Act does not apply to Waqf-alal- aulad as such a Waqf is not of public nature. However if such a private Waqf-alal-aulad is created partly for the benefit of family members of settler and partly for benefit of the poor in general, then in such cases the Waqf Act applies to the extent property is dedicated to a pious, religious or charitable purpose recognized under Muslim Law for general public. This was observed in Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Vs. Ebrahim Musuee cited as AIR 1979 Mad
231.
45. On the other hand, public Waqf is a Waqf which is created by dedication of property permanently for any religious, pious or charitable purpose recognized under Muslim Law for the benefit of general public. The Law on creation of public Waqf is discussed in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. Cited as 1976 AIR 1569, 1976 SCR (3) 721. It was observed that the word 'Waqf' means detention or appropriation. A public Waqf is a dedication made for the purposes of public charity, religious or pious purposes.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 18 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
46. It was further observed that once the founder/ settler dedicates a site for the purpose of building a mosque and prayers are offered at the site even once, it becomes Waqf property and the ownership of the founder/ settler is completely extinguished. The moment a person is allowed to offer his prayers in a Mosque, the Mosque becomes dedicated to the public finally. Under the Mohammedan Law, no Muslim can be denied the right to offer prayers in a Mosque, no matter what section or creed of society he may belong to. It was further observed that even the adjuncts to the Mosque, which are used for religious purposes, become as much part of the Mosque as the Mosque itself. It was observed in the Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd. Hanif's case (supra) as follows:-
"This is necessary in case of prayers offered in congregation. A single Muslim can also offer his paryers with or without an Imam but the prayers in a congregation or a Jamaat are offered only behind an Imam who leads the prayers. As Islam is an extremely modern and liberal religion. there is no question of any person being denied admission into a mosque for the purpose of offering prayers and that is why the law is so strict that the moment a person is allowed to offer his prayers in a mosque, the mosque becomes dedicated to the public finally , it is not necessary for the dedication of a public mosque that a Muttawali or a Pesh Imam should be appointed which could be done later by the members of the Muslim community. All that is necessary is that there should be a declaration of the intention to dedicate either expressly or impliedly and a divestment of his interest in the property by the owner followed by delivery of possession. Here also the delivery of possession does not involve any ritual formality or any CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 19 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 technical rule. For instance in the case of a mosque if the Mahomedans of the village, town or the area are permitted to offer their prayers either on the vacant land or in a mosque built for the said purpose that amounts to the delivery of possession and divestment and after the prayers have been offered the dedication becomes complete."
" It would thus appear that in order to create a valid dedication of a public nature, the following conditions must be satisfied :
(1) that the founder must declare his intention to dedicate a property for the purpose of a mosque. No particular form of declaration is necessary.The declaration can be presumed from the conduct of the founder either express or implied;
(2) that the founder must divest himself completely from the ownership of the property, the divestment can be inferred from the fact that he had delivered possession to the Mutawalli or an Imam of the mosque.Even if there is no actual delivery of possession the mere fact that members of the Mahomedan public are permitted to offer prayers with azan and ikamat, the Waqf is complete and irrevocable; and (3) that the founder must make some sort of a separate entrance to the mosque which may be used by the public to enter the mosque."
47. It was further observed that in case a man makes a Masjid within his mansion and makes a way for the public to enter to make prayers, and prayers are made even once with azan and ikamat or the regular calls two or more times, it becomes a Public Mosque. It was further observed that once a Masjid is established by dedication, no condition can be attached by the founder and if any such condition is attached, such a condition would be void and the Waqf CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 20 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 would be lawful. Hence the proprietary right of the Waqif in a building set apart for prayers becomes extinguished either on the declaration of the Waqif that he has consecrated it for worship, or on the actual performance of prayers therein. Hence once prayers are offered by call for prayers, the Mosque becomes irrevocably dedicated to God and the Mosque belongs to Allah. It becomes absolute Waqf. Further, a Masjid cannot be consecrated for only a particular type of people or people belonging to a particular locality, and if any such reservation is made, it is void. Further a Masjid never reverts to its original owner or his legal heirs. The prayers of one individual alone is sufficient to constitute it as public Mosque as long as it is accompanied by azan and ikamat. A Mosque belongs to Allah.
48. Further there is no categorization of Mosque in Islam as Sunni mosque or Shia Mosque or Hanafi Mosque. Every Muslim is entitled to offer prayers in any of the public Mosques irrespective of the fact that who dedicated it, how it was dedicated, who is managing it. Though there are small differences in the way prayers are made. The Sunnis make their prayers with folded hands in front while Shias drop their hands straight down by their sides while Shaifis raise their hands while pronouncing Takbir and pronounce the word Ameen loudly. However these minor ritualistic differences have no bearing on the right to offer prayers in a Mosque. In a Mosque every Muslim is entitled to follow his own form during prayers. The Imam may be of a CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 21 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 particular school but there is no prohibition on Muslim of any school to say prayers behind him. There is only one congregational prayer in a Mosque in which Muslims of all schools may participate. It was so observed in Mohamed Wasi Vs Bachchan Sahib cited as AIR 1955 All
68.
49. It was observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. Cited as 1976 AIR 1569, 1976 SCR (3) 721 that once a property is dedicated for public worship and is used for offering prayers since a very long time, it becomes Waqf by user. Normally a Waqf requires an express dedication, but where there is no evidence as to when Waqf was created, by whom it was created and how it was created, it's existence may be proved by way of evidence of user. Waqf by user is generally seen in cases of Public Mosques, kabristan, dargah etc. The long continuous uninterrupted user as such of these places is sufficient to treat them as public waqf by the members of Muslim community, the land on which they are situate are necessarily inferred to have been dedicated by the owners for such religious purposes and hence they have the character of Waqf. Further in such cases, the long user is the only available evidence to show that the property is a Waqf property. Further if any additional room or shops or graveyard is constructed and are used for religious purposes, the entire property becomes Waqf by user.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 22 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
50. It was observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd.
Hanifs Cited as 1976 AIR 1569, 1976 SCR (3) 721 case that :-
"It is also well settled that where a mosque has been in existence for a long time and prayers have been offered therein, the Court will infer that it is not by leave and licence but that the dedication is complete and the property no longer belongs to the owner. In Miru V. Ramgopal (2) the High Court of Allahabad observed as follows:
"But where a building has stood on a piece of land for a long time and the worship has been performed in that building, then it would be a matter of inference for the Court which is the judge of facts, as to whether the right has been exercised in that building for such a sufficiently long time as to justify the presumption that the building itself had been allowed to be consecrated for the purposes of such rights being performed. Where there is a mosque or a temple, which has been in existence for a long time, and the terms of the original grant of the land cannot now be ascertained, there would be a fair presumption that the sites on which mosques or temples stand are dedicated property."
51. Further a land may be dedicated as Mosque without a building and once a building in the nature of Mosque is built on it, a clear case of dedication is made out. Once a Mosque is constructed, it stood dedicated to God and the rights of the owner/ settlor gets extinguished completely. Once there is a complete dedication of Mosque as a place of public worship, any condition imposed by the owner would be void. In such cases who actually made the construction becomes wholly irrelevant. The Act of CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 23 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 permitting Mohammadans to build a Mosque itself amounts to complete dedication or a declaration that the Mosque is a public property. It was observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd. Hanifs By L.Rs. Cited as 1976 AIR 1569, 1976 SCR (3) 721 case that :-
"In our view the question of the person who actually made the construction is wholly irrelevant because all the constructions made by any person used for religious purposes incidental to offering of prayers in the mosque would be deemed to be accretions to the mosque itself and there is unchallenged evidence to show that all the constructions were used by the Mahomedan community for the purpose of offering their prayers in the mosque on special occasions."
52. Further where arrangements are made in the Mosque for Wazoo, the entire Mosque is used for offering prayers and loud speakers are used for azan and delivering khudbaz, it becomes a public Mosque meant for religious purpose. It was observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd. Hanifs case (supra) that :-
"It is well known that on special occasions like Fridays, Id, Ide-Milad and other auspicious occasions the entire Muslim community flock to the mosque for the purpose of offering prayers, because offering of prayers on such days is, according to the Islamic tenets, extremely auspicious and highly efficacious. It is also established from the evidence that the constructions referred to above had been made for the purpose of the mosque. Before a Mussalman offers his prayers he has first to wash his hands and CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 24 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 feet in the prescribed manner and for this purpose arrangements are made in every mosque, and Pallivasal is no exception. Accoedingly a tank or a Hauz, where water was pumped in was meant for the purpose of Wazoo i.e. for washing hands and feet which is a prerequisite for offering the prayers. Similarly as a large number of Muslims assembled on special occasions as mentioned above, the entire space including the mosque, the Mandapam, and the corridor was used for the purpose of offering prayers. Thus these constructions were used for religious purposes incidental to the offering of prayers and have become accretions to the mosque so as to constitute one single entity. Similarly the mats are meant for the Mahomedans to be used at the time of offering prayers. Lastly the loud speaker is used for reciting Azan and delivering Khutbas i.e. religious sermons. Thus all the adjuncts of the mosque are meant for purely religious purpose connected with the offering of prayers in the mosque."
"The case of the defendants was that these constructions were their private property, but there is not an iota of evidence to prove the same. The law on the point is well settled that where any construction is made for the purpose of the mosque or for its benefit or by way of gift to the mosque, the same also becomes a public Waqf."
53. The right to officiate in a Mosque of public nature has to be decided according to the principles of Mohammedan Law and custom. It was further observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd. Hanifs case that once a Mosque is held to be a public Mosque, the Mohammedan Law does not favour the right of a person to officiate as Imam to be CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 25 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 hereditary, in the absence ofany custom or usage to the contrary. The property having been dedicated to God, it is not open to the founder or his descendants to interfere with the performance of public prayers. An Imam must possess certain essential virtues before he can claim to lead the congregations at the prayers. It was observed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai vs Mohd. Hanifs case (supra) that :
"There is some dispute about the right to act as an Imam. We have already pointed out that the Mahomedan Law does not favour the hereditary right of being an Imam because an Imam must possess certain special qualities and certain special knowledge of the scriptures before he can be allowed to lead the prayers. The evidence shows that the Labbais have undoubtedly been acting as Imams, though not for a continuous period. This, however, is a matter for the entire Muslim community to decide because an Imam is normally chosen under the Mahomadan Law by the Muslim community. There is no clear evidence of any usage or custom by which the right to act as Imam is hereditary in this case."
Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh - if a Waqf property
54. Whether a JMSB is a public Waqf or not is to be decided on the basis of facts and evidence lead before the Court.
55. It is the argued that Mrs. Abida Khatoon, W/o Late Sh.
Islamullah Premi was the owner of this property and she executed a GPA dated 23.03.1999 in favour of her son Sh. Shariq Ansarullah to manage the affairs of the mosque.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 26 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
56. During the evidence, PWs were only able to bring on record the copy of site plan which is Ex.PW-1/1(OSR), copy of driving license of deponent as Mark A, copy of receipt issued by Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh as Ex.PW-1/2(Colly)(OSR), copy of Jama Masjid Shaheen Bagh Trust Registration as Mark B, copy of Trust Deed dated 25.02.2011 as Mark C, copy of supplementary Trust Deed dated 30.09.2013 as Mark D and copy of complaint dated 03.04.2015 as Mark E. However, Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence before the Court to prove their case.
57. There is a specific issue framed in this case if the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as the property is claimed to be a Waqf property. When it is the specific claim of plaintiffs that Sh. Shariq Ansarullah is the settler, acting under the GPA of Smt. Abida Khatoon and is empowered to form a trust for the management of JMSB, the onus was on plaintiffs to prove the authority of Smt. Abida Khatoon to execute this GPA. A Muslim can dedicate a property to be used as a Mosque or Waqf only if he is owner of it. A person who is not the owner of a land, cannot dedicate it for the purpose of creation of a Waqf or Mosque. However there is not even an iota of evidence to prove that Smt. Abida Khatoon was the owner of this land. Hence she had no authority to give any GPA qua this land to anyone. Any such GPA is without any effect.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 27 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
58. Even if the argument of plaintiff is accepted that Smt. Abida Khatoon was the owner of this property and she had executed this GPA in favour of her son, she had already dedicated this property for the purpose of construction of Jama Masjid and a Waqf was already created by her when she executed this GPA. A perusal of this GPA dated 23.03.1999 would show that she has appointed Sh. Shariq Ansarullah as settler for a piece of land which she had already donated to Allah. It is pertinent to quote here the relevant extract from the GPA dated 23.03.1999 :-
"I Mrs. Abida Khatoon, do hereby nominate, appoint and constitute my son Sh. Shariq Ansarullah, S/o Late Mr. Islamullah Premi, R/o E-15, Abul Fazal Enclave, New Delhi- 110025 (hereinafter called the attorney) as my lawful legal Attorney and authorise him to do the following acts, deeds and things for and on my behalf and in my name in respect of my donated piece of land for Jama Masjid measuring 1 Bigha comprising in Khasra No. 379 min, situated in the Revenue Estate Village Jasola, Tehsil Mehrauli, District, New Delhi, State Delhi (hereinafter called the property).
To manage, control and supervise the affairs of Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh and to do all acts as are ancillary and incidental for the same including to take the entire control, management and personally handling and looking after the affairs of Jama Masjid."
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 28 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
59. Beside the above mentioned clauses in this GPA, the other clauses are about the acts which the settler was to do for the construction of Mosque/ Jama Masjid viz. to represent her in any office for permissions, to get water and electricity meters, to get construction and alteration of Jama Masjid, to represent her in all the Courts, to receive and accept consideration or money with respect to Jama Masjid etc.
60. A perusal of the above mentioned extract from this GPA dated 23.03.1999 would show that her intention was to permanently dedicate this property to Allah and she only appointed a settler for the same. Hence a Waqf was already created by her when she executed this GPA. Needless to say that the Waqf may be created orally also and there is no special or particular mode for creation of a Waqf.
61. A perusal of the above extract of GPA would show that she had not given any rights for use of funds from Jama Masjid to her legal heirs. She had no intention of creating Waqf alal-aulad, for she had not mentioned that she is dedicating this land for the benefit of her legal heirs. She has only given right to manage the Mosque to a settler. Beside that, there is no whisper in the entire GPA, of any rights given to family members or descendants. She has authorized the settler to make a committee, appoint an Imam and to accept the funds, for the purpose of management of Jama Masjid only. Hence going by this CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 29 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 alleged GPA, the intention of Abida Khatoon was to create a public Waqf only. Hence this being a Waqf property as per the GPA dated 23.03.1999, the issue so raised in the present suit has to be raised before appropriate authority/ Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act.
62. It is also the case of Plaintiffs that Defendants and other public have been contributing money for the purpose of construction of JMSB. Admission of PWs in their cross- examination, it is proved that JMSB is constructed with the help of funds of public. It is also admitted by plaintiff's witnesses that general public is allowed to offer prayers in the JMSB after azan and ikamat. It has come on record that general public is offering prayers in JMSB since 1991 if not earlier. There is no discretion of settler to admit or deny the public, the right to make prayers in JMSB. It is settled law that once, even one person from public offers prayer in a Masjid after azan and ikamat, it becomes a public Mosque and hence a public Waqf. JMSB is constructed with the funds of public and Muslims from any and all walks of life have been offering prayers in JMSB for years now. Hence JMSB is a Waqf by user. The JMSB has become a public Waqf by way of its long, steady, continuous, uninterrupted user for offering prayers by the Muslim community.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 30 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
63. It is admitted by parties that they are carrying out social, educational, religious and charitable activities through the Mosque amongst the Islamic community in India. Hence it is the own case of plaintiffs that this Mosque was dedicated to Allah by Mrs. Abida Khatoon to carry out social, educational, religious and charitable activities and they have created this Trust in furtherance of the said intention of Abida Khatoon. They themselves admit the dedication of this property to Allah by Abida Khatoon to carry out a purpose which is duly recognized in Muslim Law. Hence according to the own pleadings of plaintiff, JMSB is a Waqf only, which was dedicated to Allah by Abida Khatoon for a pious cause.
64. It is settled law that under Muslim Law, once a property is dedicated to Waqf or by way of Waqf alal- aulad, it is permanently dedicated to Allah and the property vests in Allah. The property does not revert back to the original owner. The settler/ Mutawalli only manages the property in furtherance of intention of Waqif/ dedicator. Hence the property does not belong to any Trust or Committee. Nor can they claim absolute right to manage it. Its a Waqf property, to be managed in accordance with the provisions of the Waqf Act. The owner is Allah and it vests in Allah.
65. Coming to the formation of Trust and management of the Mosque by it, it is to be noted that before the Trust was formed, it has come on record that one Mr. Premi was managing it. It has come on record that there was a CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 31 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 managing committee who was managing the same but now there is a Trust to manage it. The trust claims absolute right to manage on the basis of a GPA . The property being a Waqf, the issue of management of the JMSB is to be decided by appropriate authority under the Waqf Act, 1985.
Relief of Injunction - Outside jurisdiction of this Court
66. Having held so that the JMSB is a Waqf property, the obvious corollary is that all disputes pertaining to the Waqf or Waqf property are to be raised before the Tribunal. But it is the argument of Counsel for plaintiff that by way of present suit, plaintiff is only seeking an injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the management and running of the Mosque, restraining them from staying in the Mosque overnight , restraining the defendants from setting up shops inside the Mosque and restraining them from raising any unauthorized and illegal construction in the Mosque. It is argued that plaintiff is not claiming any rights in the 'Waqf.' However by seeking such an injunction, the plaintiff is indirectly seeking a right to let him manage the Mosque and to let him peacefully enjoy the assets which relate to the Waqf including Mosque. The nature of relief claimed shows that this case is with regard to peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque which is a Waqf property and right to manage the affairs of the Mosque and assets related to the Waqf. Such a right being related to Waqf and Waqf property, is to be raised before the Tribunal set up under CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 32 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 the Waqf Act and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana vs P.V. Ibrahim Haji & Ors cited as [(2014) 16 SCC 65 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 446 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 655] that where a dispute is with regard to management and peaceful enjoyment of Mosque and Madarsa and assets which relate to the Waqf, the nature of relief clearly shows that Waqf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide such disputes. The relevant extract from the judgment is as follows:-
"The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Waqf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration, management and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and madrassa run by it and all the assets attached to the Mosque. Appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act stated to be formed for the management and administration of Waqf property including a Mosque situated therein, filed a suit for an injunction before the Court of Munsiff, Manjeri, which was transferred to the Court of Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode and numbered as O.S. No.53 of 2003. The suit was contested by the respondents on merits and ultimately it was decreed by the Waqf Tribunal on 28.09.2004 and the plaintiff was given a decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents and their men from interfering in any manner in the administration, management and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Mosque, namely, Akkode Juyamath Palli, the madrassa run by it and all the assets CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 33 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 attached to the Mosque.
We are of the view that the dispute that arises for consideration in this case is with regard to the management and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and madrassa and the assets which relate to Waqf. Nature of the relief clearly shows that the Waqf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide those disputes. We, therefore, find no error in the Waqf Tribunal entertaining O.S. No.53 of 2003 filed by the appellant and the High Court has committed an error in holding otherwise. Consequently the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the revision on merits. The appeals are disposed of as above, with no order as to costs."
67. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Board Of Waqf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr cited as (2011) 1 WBLR (SC)308 that once a property is found to be a Waqf property, all matters pertaining to Waqf or Waqf property have to be agitated before Waqf Tribunal. Under the Waqf Act, 1995, it has powers of Civil Court and has power to grant temporary injunctions even. The relevant extract is as follows:-
"14. Thus, the Waqf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Waqf or Waqf property. The words "any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Waqf or Waqf property" are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Waqf or Waqf property can be decided by the Waqf Tribunal. The word `Waqf' has been defined in Section 3 CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 34 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Waqf property as defined in Section 3 (r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Waqf Tribunal.
15. Under Section 83 (5) of the Waqf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full-
fledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Waqf or Waqf property.
17. We may clarify that under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal can approach the High Court which can call for the records for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision of the Tribunal. This provision make it clear that the intention of Parliament is that the party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to a Waqf or Waqf property should first approach the Tribunal before approaching the High Court."
Mismanagement in JMSB
68. It is claimed by Plaintiffs that Defendants have unlawfully constructed the shops in mosque. There have been disputes between the parties after which complaints have been filed in the police station. There have been allegations against each other that they are unlawfully permitting certain members of Muslim community to stay in the mosque over night. During the oral arguments before this Court, there have been allegations of parties CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 35 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 indulging in anti-social activities which have resulted in a riot like situation not only in JMSB but also in the vicinity. It has disturbed peace and Law and Order of this area. It is claimed that there have been incidents of snatching mikes during the prayers beside other allegations. It is claimed that land kept for Madarasa and dispensary has been unauthorizedly disposed off/ utilized. It is claimed that despite the orders being passed by this Court, there have been violations of the orders of this Court. All these incidents and cross allegations and cross complaints only show the disturbance which is created in JMSB and in managing its day to day affairs.
69. The purpose of creation of sacred places like Jama Masjid is to provide a serene and peaceful environment to the people where they can offer their prayers to the God. A prayer is a way of establishing a connection with the God. People flock to such places to offer prayers to get peace and happiness. Every religion has established its own sort of places where people can go to worship the God and offer their prayers. These places have a different and peaceful environment which is a result of the process of offering prayers over a long period of time. People get peace, bliss, happiness in visiting such places. These are sacred places where either idols are consecrated or Holy books are worshiped. There are priests/ imams to lead the prayers. However such an environment, which this Mosque was supposed to provide, has been disturbed by the acts of the both the parties herein, in claiming rights CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 36 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 over the Mosque to manage it, to supervise it and to control it. The purpose for which this sacred Mosque was created appears to have been left behind.
70. In such circumstances and in order to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in future, it is appropriate that the affairs of the mosque are managed by the intervention of appropriate authority under the Waqf Act, 1995.
71. A perusal of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 would show that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not completely barred. Those disputes which are not covered under the provisions of the Waqf Act are to be decided by the Civil Courts. The order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 11.10.2013 regarding imposition of conditions for over night stay in the Mosque is one such order which is within the purview of the Civil Court. The interim order dated 11.10.2013 was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this case thereby directing that in case someone from outside needs to stay overnight in the Mosque, he may be permitted to do so subject to proof of his identity submitted to the SHO of the area concerned. It was directed that :-
"3. None of the parties except Muazzin of the Mosque would be staying there inside the Mosque during the nights. None of the residents of the locality as also any resident of Delhi would be allowed to stay overnight in the Mosque. However, if someone from outside needs to stay overnight in the Mosque keeping in view his religious sentiments, he/she can be permitted to stay overnight in the Mosque, but, subject to his CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 37 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 proof of Identity Card to be submitted with SHO of the area. In the event of such a person during his stay, doing any unlawful activity or behaving disorderly or indecently, SHO of the area, on the request of the plaintiff, would be empowered to remove him from the Mosque forthwith. For any reason, any such person will not be allowed to stay more than three nights."
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 "The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, renaming the Waqf Act, 1995, as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UWMEED) Act, aims to reform Waqf property administration in India. This article analyzes the revised compositions of the Central Waqf Council, State Waqf Boards, and Waqf Tribunals, and their role in Muslim community development. The Central Waqf Council now includes two Muslim women and two non-Muslim members, ensuring diverse representation. State Waqf Boards incorporate two non-Muslim members, two Muslim women, and representatives from various Muslim sects, with state-nominated members replacing elected ones. Waqf Tribunals, now threemember bodies, comprise a District Court judge, a Joint Secretary-level officer, and a Muslim law expert, with appeals to High Courts within 90 days. The Act promotes transparency through centralized digital registration, curbs encroachments, and protects women's inheritance rights, fostering socio-economic empowerment. However, nonMuslim inclusion and increased government oversight raise concerns about religious autonomy, making the Act a significant yet debated reform for Waqf management and Muslim development."
72. This amendment came into effect in the year 2025 that too prospectively only. In the opinion of this court, this suit is governed by the old law Waqf Act, 1995 only.
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 38 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026
73. As the present Court does not have jurisdiction and the dispute between parties regarding the claim of management of the affairs of JMSB are still subsisting, the said interim order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the extent reproduced above shall continue unless it is vacated or varied by the Civil Court, on an appropriate application being made by the appropriate authority, after considering the law and order situation in Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh at that time.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:-
74. Issue No.1: In view of above discussion, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction from this Court as the JMSB is a Waqf property and this issue is to be decided by appropriate authority/ Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act, 1995. The present suit for Declaration, Mandatory Injunction and Permanent Injunction is not maintainable before this Court as JMSB is a Waqf property and this Court has no jurisdiction over subject matter of the dispute. In conclusion, in light of foregoing comprehensive discussion, this issue is decided against the Plaintiffs.
RELIEF:-
75. In view of above discussion, it is hereby held that Jama Masjid, Shaheen Bagh is a Waqf property covered by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 and there is a specific authority/ Tribunal created under Waqf Act, 1995 to deal with this issue. Hence the present suit CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED Page no. 39 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026 before this Court is dismissed being not maintainable and outside the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.
76. Parties to bear their own costs.
77. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
78. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Poorva Mehra) today on 25.03.2026 Civil Judge-02, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 40 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Poorva Mehra)
Civil Judge-02, South East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 164/2015 51377/16 Poorva Mehra
Sageer Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Shariq Ansarullah & Ors. Civil Judge-02/SED
Page no. 40 of 40 Saket Court, ND/25.03.2026