A challenge to a long-standing notification under the Muslim Wakfs Act after an undue delay is impermissible, reinforcing the finality of administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ.

1. The petitioner, which is a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, has invoked our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by instituting this petition purportedly in public interest through its Authorised person/Trustee – Sh. Preet Singh, whereby a notification dated 24.03.1980 issued by the Delhi Wakf Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Wakf Board”) which was published in the official Gazette of Delhi on 10.04.1980, has been challenged.

2. By the said notification issued under Section 5 (2) of the Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the“Act, 1954”), certain wakf properties existing in the then Union Territory of Delhi have been published. The challenge to the said list has been made to the Sunni wakf properties enlisted at Serial No. 26, 27 and 29, namely, (i) Mosque locally known as Jama Masjid, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, (ii) Mosque, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, locally known as Moti Masjid and (iii) Masjid Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

3. A perusal of the impugned notification reveals that it was published by the Wakf Board after examining the report forwarded to the Wakf Board by the Delhi Administration under Section 5 (1) of the Act, 1954.

4. At the outset, learned counsel representing the Wakf Board has opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition by stating that challenge to a notification issued in the year 1980 after a lapse of about 46 years would not be permissible and further that the list of the wakf properties was published strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1954 after following due process as per the provisions contained in Section 4 and 5 of the Act, 1954 and therefore, the petition is misconceived.

5. Making submissions on behalf of the Wakf Board, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Section 4 of the Act, 1954 which provides for appointment of a Commissioner of Wakfs for the State, who under sub- section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, 1954 was mandated to conduct an inquiry and thereafter submit his report to the State Government containing certain particulars, namely, (i) the number of wakfs in the State, (ii) nature and object of each wakf, (iii) gross income of property comprised in each wakf, (iv) the amount of land revenue, cess rates and taxes payable in respect of such property and (v) the expenses incurred in realisation of the income and pay or other remuneration of the Mutawalli and such other particulars relating to each wakfs as may be prescribed.

6. It has further been argued that under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, 1954 on receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, 1954, the State Government was required to forward a copy of the same to the Wakf Board, which under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, 1954 was required to examine the report and publish it in the official gazette. A list of wakfs existing in the State containing such particulars as may be prescribed. It has, thus, been stated and argued on behalf of the Wakf Board that the list contained in the impugned notification was, thus, published by the Wakf Board after an inquiry conducted by the Commissioner of Wakfs and on a report based on such inquiry tendered by the State Government to the Wakf Board. It has also been argued on behalf of the Wakf Board that making a challenge to the impugned notification after such a long period is tantamount to abuse of the p