The judgment established the liability of unauthorized occupants to pay occupation charges and costs to the Waqf Board, emphasizing the fiduciary nature of the Imam's occupation and the impermissibility of claiming independent rights in Waqf property.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition relates to a prime property located next to the Masjid Zabta Ganj, Man Singh Road, India Gate, New Delhi. The Petitioner, Zahir Ahmed, has filed the present petition seeking de-sealing of the said property, which admittedly consists of one room, kitchen, bathroom and some space adjacent to the mosque (hereinafter 'said property'). Further, he seeks a restraint order against alleged harassment being caused to him. Petitioner further seeks permission to make reconstruction of the said property.

3. The prayers in this writ petition are as under:-

".. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to de-seal the said premise of the petitioner and hand over peaceful possession to the petitioner;

b. Issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondent no. 2 to refrain from unnecessary harass the petitioner in respect of possession of the said property of the petitioner;

C. Issue appropriate direction to respondent no. 2 to 3 to reconstruct the wall demolished by them and also rebuilt the premise in the same state as it was prior to 05.03.2020;

d. Issue appropriate direction to the respondent no. 4 to take appropriate actions against the person who have illegally encroached its property in the area near India Gate;

e. Issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondent no. 1 & 5 to conduct an enquiry and take legal action against the erring officials;

f. Issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondent no. 5 to take legal action against officials of respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 & his relatives and goons;

g. Pass any other/further writ/order which this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Admittedly, the said property is in the vicinity of India Gate in New Delhi. The case of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that he and his family have been living in the said property for several decades and the property was separated from the mosque by a wall constructed between the mosque and the said property.

5. The Petitioner relies on a civil suit was instituted by the Waqf Board being Civil Suit No. 597/1995 titled 'Delhi Wakf Board v. Sh. Zaheer Ahmed & Sh. Rashid Ahmed' seeking possession of the said property. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 14th October 1998, as the parties had not led evidence in the matter.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in 2005, the Respondent No. 3- Mohd. Asad i.e. the current Imam of the Masjid, along with others accused, demolished the wall which separated the said property from the Waqf property/Mosque. A First Information Report ('FIR') was also registered in this regard by the occupants of the said property. However, it is stated that after the intervention of the police, the petitioner could reconstruct the wall that was demolished by the Respondent No. 3. Finally, various orders were passed by this Court in Writ Petitions filed by the occupants as also by the Petitioner leading to proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995.

7. The Petitioner avers that since 2009 various notices for eviction have been issued by the Waqf Board and eviction orders have been passed by the Waqf Board and the SDM, the details of which have been given in the petition, against the workers/employees of the Petitioner, namely, Mr. Zainul, Mr. Sainul and Mr. Nafees. As per the Petitioner, no such eviction notices have ever been issued against the Petitioner in respect of the said property. Hence, the Petitioner seeks reinstatement in the said property.

8. It may be noted that as per the Eviction Order passed by the CEO of the Waqf Board dated 6th March 2009, against Mr. Zainul, the Petitioner - Mr. Zahir Ahmed had appeared on behalf of Mr. Zainul and was unable to show any authority under which both Mr. Zainul and Mr. Zahir Ahmed were occupying the said property. Accordingly, the CEO of the Waqf Board directed that Mr. Zahir