Hon’ble Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J.—This petition, in the public interest, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted by an Advocate practicing in this Court seeking a direction commanding the official respondents to immediately remove the encroachment made on a plot of land allotted to the High Court and Advocate General’s office, bearing Nazul Plot No. 59, Civil Station, Allahabad, measuring 8019.57 Sq. Meters (for short ‘the plot’). The allegation of encroachment was initially made against an unknown person, who subsequently was identified as the respondent No. 7-Waqf. It is stated that respondent No. 7 has recently constructed a Masjid on the portion of the plot, towards it’s south-west corner, measuring about 100’x50' known as “Masjid High Court”, hereinafter referred to as “the site in dispute”. Respondent No. 7 is a registered Waqf, bearing No. 3155-Allahabad, and it is represented through its President-Managing Committee.

2. The questions raised and which fall for our consideration are:

i. Whether respondent No. 7 has encroached on the site in dispute and constructed/created a public Mosque over the same, some time after disposal of Writ Petition No. 32344 of 2001, instituted by ex-lessees; or whether it was constructed/created in 1981, as claimed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 ?

ii. Whether the site in dispute was ever dedicated by the lessees, including respondent No. 8 by way of waqf/for the purpose of a public Mosque, divesting themselves completely and permanently from the same, and if yes, whether they could have done so in the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?

iii. Whether respondent No. 7 perfected title to the site in dispute by adverse possession, resulting in extinguishment of the title of the High Court/State by operation of Section 27 of the Limitation Act?

iv. Whether right of the High Court/State to seek ejectment of respondent No. 7 stands extinguished on account of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, delay and laches ?

2.1 Having regard to the nature of controversy and for addressing the questions, that fall for our consideration, narration of factual matrix in depth is of great consequence. We have, therefore, divided the narration of facts into two parts. The first part would consist of the facts which are either admitted or are not disputed and in the second part, we would make reference to the facts/case, as narrated by the parties in the writ petition, counter-affidavits, supplementary-affidavits, rejoinder-affidavits, civil misc. applications etc.

2.2 Before proceeding further, we wish to note for sake of clarity that Waqf Masjid High Court sought its impleadment as a party respondent by filing an application, which was allowed on 11.4.2017. On the same date, on an oral prayer made by Azim Ahmad Kazmi, one of the ex-lessees and a practicing advocate of this Court, was permitted to be added as a party respondent. In the entire proceedings, which were held after the above two were permitted to be added as respondents, Waqf Masjid High Court has been referred to as respondent No. 7 while Azim Ahmad Kazmi as respondent No. 8. However, it seems that while carrying out amendments in the cause title, the petitioner, who was appearing in person, has arrayed Azim Ahmad Kazmi as respondent No. 7 while Waqf Masjid High Court as respondent No. 8, but in all the affidavits and the orders of the Court, Waqf Masjid High Court has been referred to as respondent No. 7 while Azim Ahmad Kazmi as respondent No. 8. Therefore, to maintain consistency, in the instant judgment, we would refer to the Waqf-Masjid High Court as respondent No. 7 and Azim Ahmad Kazmi as respondent No. 8.

Facts admitted or not disputed:

3. The factual matrix either admitted or not disputed is as follows: In 1868, on 11 January, a lease of the plot was granted in favour of Thomas Crowby for a period of 50