The general law of limitation applies to petitions under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and the petition could not have been brought eight years after the impugned orders were passed.

1. The petitioner (since deceased) approached this court by the present petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bring a challenge to the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by the additional district judge (ADJ)-02, New Delhi, presiding over Delhi Wakf Tribunal whereby his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and petition under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 presented on 01.02.2013 were dismissed. The dispute relates to premises described as T-18, Ward No.8, Shamsi Talab, near Lal Masjid, Mehrauli, New Delhi, statedly forming part of Khasra No.1151/3, Lal Dora, Old Abadi of Village Mehrauli. The petitioner would describe it to be his residence for over 42 years (as the time of filing of the petition at hand), this preceded by its occupation for residence by his father it being “ancestral in nature”. The first respondent (Delhi Wakf Board), on the other hand, claims the subject premises to be a wakf property.

2. As indicated above, the original petitioner Akbar Ali has died on 04.07.2016 and the petition is prosecuted by his legal representatives who stand substituted in his place.

3. It is necessary to trace albeit briefly, the history of the litigation, as may be culled out from the pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner on record.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had at one point of time claimed to be the owner of the lands on which the subject-premises is situate and had ordered demolition issuing some communication to such effect on 15.02.2001 whereby the eviction, amongst others, of the petitioner was directed. The petitioner, along with other similarly placed persons, is stated to have challenged the said action of DDA under Delhi Development Act, 1957 by statutory appeal (No.74/80/MCD/2001) before the appellate tribunal, MCD (“AT-MCD”). It is stated that the AT-MCD, by order dated 25.08.2003, had granted interim protection by ordering status quo and had asked the petitioner and other appellants to approach the competent authority, i.e. Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. Reference is made to another appeal (No.94/04) filed before AT-MCD which statedly granted the order of maintenance of status quo on 20.02.2004. It has further been the case of the petitioner that DDA had preferred an appeal (No.139/2004) before the LG of Delhi which appeal was dismissed and the matter remanded back by order dated 28.09.2005 with direction to DDA to issue fresh notices and give opportunity for objections to be filed.

5. It is petitioner’s own case that on 06.07.2005, the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Wakf Board (the first respondent) issued an order in exercise of his power under Section 54(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 regarding the status of the subject premises being a wakf property and the petitioner having unauthorizedly occupied a part of the same, he being an encroacher. The Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Wakf Board directed the petitioner, by the said order dated 06.07.2005, to vacate the subject premises within fifteen days of the service clarifying that in the event of refusal or failure to do so, he would be liable to be evicted as per the provisions of Section 54 of Wakf Act, 1995.

6. It is further an undisputed case of the petitioner that the order dated 06.07.2005 of the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Wakf Board had been made over to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Hauz Khas area, within the jurisdiction of which the subject-premises falls for further action and the said SDM, by order dated 19.08.2005, had noted failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the order of the Chief Executive Officer within the stipulated period. The SDM, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 55 of Wakf Act, 1995, directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment and vacate the subject-premises within fifteen days of the service of the said order and in case of failure be liable to be evicted, if need be “by the use of such forc