The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a case brought by a Waqf committee challenging a notice issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) to remove a madrasa, or Islamic school, that the civic body claims it acquired in 1967.
The court stated that it had no intention of interfering with the religious school’s current process. The Waqf committee, which manages the madrasa in Surat’s Sangrampura area, filed a plea disputing the SMC’s notice to remove the structure, but Justice AY Kogje dismissed it.
“In the opinion of the court, in absence of any evidence on record regarding actual running of educational institution and there is nothing on record to indicate any permission to running educational institution or building permission to put up construction of educational institution and the factual assertion not being controverted that the premises were being used for commercial purpose, the court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing process, which according to the court is in accordance with the provisions of GDCR.”
On October 1, 2021, the SMC issued a notice to the Waqf committee for the demolition of “illegal construction” on the grounds that the petitioner was a “unauthorised occupant” of the site.
The petitioner, the Madrasa-e-Anwar Rabbani Waqf Committee, filed a petition with the Waqf Tribunal, which awarded a status quo that was periodically renewed. After the SMC filed a reply before the tribunal asserting ownership of the land, the status quo was not prolonged.
On December 29, 2021, the Surat civic authority issued a new notice to the committee, requesting that the construction be removed.
Following that, an executive engineer of the SMC issued an order on March 28, 2022, ordering the madrasa to be demolished within seven days on the grounds that it was built without the authorization of the relevant authority.
The Waqf committee filed a lawsuit at the HC, alleging that the land in question was previously owned by one Ashiq Hussain Abdul Hussain and his five brothers. It stated that they had given the Waqf the right, title, and share of all the brothers through an oral gift deed to establish a madrasa that educated Muslim pupils.
The SMC, on the other hand, claimed that the school’s land was purchased in 1967 for the purpose of developing a garden and a lake in accordance with town planning, and that the original owners were compensated.
The images of the site, according to Justice AY Kogje, did not show the school in operation, but rather the shutters indicated the presence of a commercial establishment (garage). Furthermore, the Gujarat Development Control Regulations, as well as approval from the government, govern the operation of educational institutions.
The Petitioner and other residents of the site appeared to be taking advantage of the lack of revenue records, according to the Bench.
The State Government was encouraged to keep a careful eye on the issue in order to address any errors, including holding public employees accountable.
In response to the impugned notice issued under Section 260(1)(a) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Petitioner further failed to present the State any renovation and “construction completion” certificate.
The Petitioner was unable to produce any documentation demonstrating legitimate occupation, and his property was unable to obtain development licence or regularisation of any kind of building.
The bench therefore, refused to interfere with the process initiated by the State authority and dismissed the petition.