The Delhi High Court in the case Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India & Ors in the case observed and has asked the Delhi Waqf Board for filing of a separate petition wherein challenging the decision of the Central Government’s to “absolve” the board from all the matters which are pertaining to 123 properties and the properties are under dispute before the court for a long time.
The bench headed by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in the case observed and has refused to pass an urgent order in Delhi Waqf Board’s application moved in a pending plea which is filed last year against the action of Union of India to delist the 123 properties.
It has also been asked by the court that the Board to file a substantive plea for challenging the letter and for listing the application wherein the plea is pending for hearing on August 4, the date which is already been fixed.
An application has been filed by Delhi Waqf Board wherein challenging the letter dated February 8 of the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for the Delhi Waqf Board submitted befor ethe court that there being no source of power with the Union of India to absolve the Board from the properties in question.
It has also been submitted by him before the court that the properties were clearly demarcated vide four surveys which was conducted way back in 1970, 1974, 1976 and 1984 and were lately being assented by the President of India that they were waqf properties.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra submitted that under the complete statutory scheme, there being no contempt of the Central or State Government to absolve the properties from the Board.
On the other hand, ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for Central Government submitted before the court that it is been prayed in the application were being filed by the Board which are totally beyond the scope of the plea pending.
Therefore, he also referred to the various orders which are passed by the court wherein the Board’s application seeking stay of the two member committee – which was looking into the status of the properties.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the revision plea.
