Writ jurisdiction cannot enlarge scope beyond original prayers or adjudicate intricate title disputes over acquired government land; challenges to acquisition or title via statutory remedies like s.3H.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the interim order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2258 of 2020 titled as ‘Waqf Allah Tala Dargah Hazrat Masum Sah Miyan vs. Natioinal Highways Authority of India and others’. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant for the following relief:-

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to remove, demolish or excavate the Mazar and not to cause any loss or damage to the Mazaar of Hazrat Masum Sah Miyan and the land appurtenant thereto total comprising of .0063 hectare equal to 63 sq. mts., situated at Khasra No. 250 in village Rampura, Tehsil Rudrapur, near Indra Chauraha, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh.”

2. The case of the appellant in the writ petition is that a Mazar of a Sufi saint, namely Sayyed Masum Sah Miyan, was in existence over the subject land since 1941. The area appurtenant to the Mazar is being used for sitting of devotees and for organizing Kawwalies and Urse, etc. As per the case of the appellant, the Mazar is also duly recorded in the records of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow as a waqf. After reorganization of the State, the entry continued in the Uttarakhand Waqf Board record. It appears that a Notification, under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was issued on 1^st December, 2012 followed by Notification under Section 3D of the Act dated 26^th April, 2013 and whereby inter alia an area measuring 0.0063 hectare of Plot No. 250 was acquired. According to the appellant, it is the same land over which Mazar was in existence. The Notification mentions that the land belongs to Government and is non-agricultural in character. It appears that when in pursuance of the said Notifications the Authorities proceeded with the construction of road over the acquired land, the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

3. It is noteworthy that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings, nor the Notification under Section 3A or 3D of the Act.

4. Learned Single Judge, on 24.04.2025, noticed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant desires to shift the remainders and the soil of Dargah Sharif to his house bearing Municipal No. 361/3 (old number) and 1732 (new number) situated at Mohalla Kheda, Tehsil Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar over an area measuring 50X42 ft. in the light of the proposed amendments to the relief clause. The learned Single Judge, in the same order, noticed that there was no conclusive evidence to establish title of the appellant over the said property. Various other facts, including the submission of two reports before the Court and which were opened during the proceedings, have also been noted. The case of the State that the acquired land was government land and that the appellant does not have title over any other land is also mentioned in the order. The operative part of the said order is as follows:-

“12. Since, now the application has been moved for shifting of so called Dargah and the name of two persons have already been suggested by Mr. Khan, learned Senior Advocate by way of an affidavit and their credentials were also verified and furthermore in the amendment application the present Mutawallli proposed his house for the purpose of shifting of Dargah, therefore, only for the limited purpose, at this stage let Mr. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C may get instructions whether the residence o