Acquisition of Waqf property for public interest through proper statutory procedure does not necessitate prior consultation with the Waqf Board before issuing demolition notices.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Since an urgency is cited by the respective learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter has been heard finally and decided today. The facts as narrated by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute, and we are not reiterating the same.

2. The Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12923 of 2025 seeking quashing and setting aside the notice dated 25.07.2025 issued by the respondent–Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) under the provisions of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (in short “GPMC Act”). The prayers are made for restraining the respondent(s) from execution and implementation of the notice dated 25.07.2025.

3. At the outset, both the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have placed reliance on the map showing the status of the properties before and after the demolition, in view of the widening of the Town Planning (TP) Road leading towards Sabarmati Railway Station, Platform No.12. The property (Mancha Masjid) of the appellant is situated in the corner. It is not in dispute that a portion of the mosque, comprising some open land and platform, is being demolished due to the widening of the road. However, the main structure of the mosque is not being demolished. We have noticed that there are number of properties, including commercial properties, residential properties, as well as a temple, which have also been included for demolition due to road widening.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.M.T.M. Hakim for learned advocate Mr.Rizwan Shaikh appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in interpreting the provisions of Section 212 of the GPMC Act read with Sections 91 and 51 of the Waqf Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the notice was issued by the Estate Officer on 17.12.2024, and the appellant filed a detailed representation before the Estate Officer on 26.12.2024. However, without dealing with the aforesaid contentions, the Standing Committee rejected the cases of all persons, including the appellant, who had objected to the demolition as well as the widening of the road. It is further submitted that hearing was required to be extended by the Standing Committee. It is submitted that after the show- cause notice was issued by the Estate Officer, and the reply was given by the appellant, the Standing Committee could not have taken the decision, that too without recording any reasons. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhavan Sanga Gamara vs. Rajkot Municipal Commissioner , 2022 (4) G.L.R. 2528. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court In re Manoj Tibrewal Akash , 2024 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. 3210. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., (2024) 10 S.C.C. 533, and it is submitted that the respondent– AMC, while widening the T.P. Road, has not observed the legal precedent as enunciated by this Court as well as the Supreme Court.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the appellant – Trust is a Masjid, a registered Waqf, and the property of the Waqf would be acquired for the purpose of road widening, and such acquisition of Waqf property is subject to the proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1955, particularly under Se