SAIYYED HAMID ALI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010016252022 2026:CGHC:38540-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date:
2026.09.02
10:13:45
+0530
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
WPPIL No. 14 of 2022
Saiyyed Hamid Ali S/o Marhum Janab Saiyyed Sabdar Ali, Aged About
52 Years R/o. Raj Kishore Nagar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495001
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board Through President/ Chairperson,
C.G. Waqf Board Raipur, C.G., Near Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Statue,
Collectorate Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Executive Officer, C.G. Waqf Board Raipur, C.G., Near Dr.
Bhimrao Ambedkar Statue, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Collector & Survey Commissioner, Waqf, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, Collectorate Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Department Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harsh Verma, Advocate holding the brief of
Mr.Arham Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General

2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1 .9 .2026
1. Heard Mr.Harsha Verma, learned counsel holding the brief of
Mr.Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr.Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
the respondent-State.
2. In the present WPPIL, the petitioner has not deposited the
security amount.
3. By way of this WPPIL, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“1.1.1 Issue a writ, order or direction thereby calling for
the entire record of the cases mentioned above and other
similar cases, if any, regarding alienation of the waqf
property.
1.1.2 Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to
recover the waqf property alienated in contravention with
the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, in the interest of
justice, and;
1.1.3 Direct the respondents to take necessary actions in
accordance with the law for removal of unauthorised
occupants from the waqf properties, and/or;
1.1.4 Any other writ/order or direction, as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper, may also be issued under
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

3
interest of justice.”
4. Facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2, Chhattisgarh
Waqf Board, is constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995 and is
statutorily entrusted with the duty to supervise, maintain, control
and administer waqf properties and to ensure that their income is
applied for the objects for which the waqf was created. In 1929,
Begum Bee, the common ancestor of Baba Insaan Ali Luthra
Sharif and the Petitioner, dedicated certain immovable properties
for pious, religious and charitable purposes by a Waqf Deed dated
24.04.1929. The said deed specifically prescribed the manner of
management and the objects for which the waqf was created.
5. The Petitioner is a descendant of Baba Insaan Ali Luthra Sharif
and has no personal or proprietary interest in the waqf property,
the same being dedicated for the benefit of the public at large.
The said waqf property was subsequently included in the List of
Auqaf and entered in the Auqaf Register on 03.06.1997 as Waqf
Property No. 40, thereby subjecting it to the statutory supervision
and protection of the Waqf Board. The waqf property consists of
four portions, namely, the land containing the Holy Shrine, the
land on which the Madrasa is situated, the land on which the
Masjid is situated, and the remaining agricultural land. While the
first three portions are under the control of the Intezamia
Committee, the agricultural portion is stated to be under the joint
control of the Committee and the Waqf Board.

4
6. Due to the alleged failure and negligence of the Respondent
authorities in protecting and managing the Waqf property, several
portions thereof have been encroached upon and illegally
alienated. In particular, Saddrauddin/Bhaddruddin is alleged to
have executed various sale deeds in respect of several khasra
numbers forming part of the waqf property, including Khasra Nos.
293/2, 408, 696, 694, 366, 645, 308, 165, 738 and 778.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that such alienations are contrary to
the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, which prohibit alienation of
waqf property except in accordance with the statutory
requirements, and that the subsequent occupants are
unauthorised and illegal. The Waqf Act provides statutory
remedies for recovery of illegally alienated waqf property and
removal of encroachments. Despite having such statutory powers
and responsibilities, the Respondent authorities allegedly failed to
take effective steps for protecting the property, removing
encroachments, recovering the alienated portions and restoring
the property for the purposes for which the waqf was created.
8. The Petitioner repeatedly approached and submitted written
representations to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, including
representations dated 19.08.2021, requesting appropriate action
against the encroachment and illegal alienation of the waqf
properties. However, no effective action was allegedly taken by
the authorities. Consequently, the Petitioner has approached the

5
competent Court alleging failure on the part of the Respondent
authorities to discharge their statutory duties, resulting in
continuing encroachment and alienation of the waqf property and
causing prejudice to the waqf, its beneficiaries and the public at
large. Hence, the present WPPIL.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the waqf
property in question was permanently dedicated by Begum Bee
under the Waqf Deed dated 24.04.1929 for pious, religious and
charitable purposes and was duly recorded as waqf property in
the Auqaf Register. The property is, therefore, subject to the
statutory protection and supervision contemplated under the Waqf
Act, 1995. It is submitted that several portions of the waqf property
have been illegally encroached upon and alienated in favour of
third parties, including through sale deeds dated 03.12.1959 and
01.04.1966, and that such transactions were made in violation of
the statutory restrictions governing alienation of waqf property.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
being the concerned waqf authorities, are under a statutory
obligation to protect, maintain, control and administer the waqf
property and to take appropriate steps for removal of
encroachments and recovery of illegally alienated property.
Despite having the requisite powers and jurisdiction, the
respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duties and
have remained negligent in preventing further encroachment and

6
alienation. It is further argued that the Petitioner repeatedly
approached the respondent authorities through representations
seeking protection and recovery of the waqf property, but no
effective action was taken. The continued inaction of the
authorities has resulted in further encroachment and illegal
alienation, thereby defeating the very objects for which the waqf
was created and causing prejudice to the waqf, its beneficiaries
and the public at large. Learned counsel consequently submitted
that the arbitrary, negligent and unreasonable inaction of the
respondent authorities warrants interference by this Court and
appropriate directions ought to be issued for protection of the
waqf property, removal of encroachments, recovery of illegally
alienated portions and restoration of the property for the
purposes for which the waqf was created.
11. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
Respondents-State opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that the present petition,
though styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is not maintainable as
such and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is
submitted that the Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of
the Waqf Act, 1995 is the competent forum to adjudicate the
grievances raised by the Petitioner concerning the alleged illegal
alienation, encroachment and recovery of the Waqf Property. The
Petitioner cannot bypass the statutory remedy available before the
Waqf Tribunal and invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this

7
Hon’ble Court.
12. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that the
Petitioner himself claims that the alleged alienations were made
as far back as in 1959 and 1966, whereas the grievance was
raised before the authorities only in 2021. Moreover, there is
inconsistency between the khasra numbers mentioned in the writ
petition and those stated in the representation dated 19.08.2021.
Thus, the Petitioner has failed to explain the considerable delay
and has not pursued the appropriate statutory remedy against the
old transactions. It is further contended that the petition contains
primarily self-serving allegations which are not supported by
cogent and reliable material warranting exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The Petitioner has also
failed to demonstrate any genuine element of public interest and
appears to be seeking adjudication of disputed and stale claims
relating to the validity of old sale deeds under the guise of a Public
Interest Litigation. He therefore submitted that the petition is
essentially an attempt to convert a private or individual grievance
into a public interest claim and to circumvent the jurisdiction of the
Waqf Tribunal. Since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is
available, and no genuine public interest is shown, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also

8
went through the records with utmost circumspection.
14. The principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the
alleged illegal alienation and encroachment over certain portions
of the Waqf Property and the alleged inaction on the part of the
respondent authorities in taking appropriate steps for its recovery
and protection. The petitioner seeks, in substance, adjudication in
respect of the validity of certain sale deeds and consequential
recovery/removal of alleged unauthorised occupants from the
property in question.
15. It is not in dispute that the Waqf Act, 1995 provides a specific
statutory mechanism for protection and recovery of waqf
properties against illegal alienation and encroachment. Section 51
renders unauthorised alienation of waqf property void; Section 52
provides for recovery of waqf property transferred in contravention
of Section 51; Sections 54 and 55 provide for removal of
encroachments and enforcement of orders of eviction; and
Section 83 provides for constitution of Waqf Tribunals for
adjudication of disputes and matters falling within their jurisdiction.
As such, the reliefs sought by the petitioner would necessarily
require determination of disputed questions of fact and
examination of the validity and effect of transactions which,
according to the petitioner himself, were executed as far back as
in the years 1959 and 1966.
16. We are also of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to

9
demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the form of a Public
Interest Litigation. The mere assertion that the property is a Waqf
Property and that its alleged encroachment affects the public at
large cannot, by itself, confer maintainability upon a petition which
essentially seeks adjudication of individual transactions and
recovery of specific properties, particularly when an efficacious
statutory remedy is available before the competent Waqf Tribunal.
17. It is further significant that, despite the alleged alienations having
taken place in 1959 and 1966, the petitioner approached the
authorities only in the year 2021. The petitioner has not
satisfactorily explained the enormous delay in questioning the said
transactions. There are also discrepancies regarding the
particulars of the khasra numbers referred to in the writ petition
and those mentioned in the representation dated 19.08.2021.
Such disputed factual issues cannot appropriately be adjudicated
in the present PIL jurisdiction.
18. We further find that the petitioner has not complied with the
requirement of depositing the requisite security amount, as
applicable to the institution of the present Writ Petition (PIL). The
said non-compliance is also a ground for declining to entertain the
petition.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the present petition, though styled as a

10
Public Interest Litigation, essentially seeks adjudication of a
dispute concerning specific Waqf properties, alleged illegal
alienations and encroachments, for which the petitioner has an
efficacious statutory remedy before the competent Waqf Tribunal.
The petitioner has also failed to establish any compelling ground
for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has
not complied with the requirement of depositing the requisite
security amount.
20. Consequently, the present Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed , both
on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory
remedy and on account of non-compliance with the requirement of
depositing the requisite security amount. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu