MP High Court Rejects Century-Old Claim Over Indore Mosque Properties, Calls It “Dead Wood”

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that a name in a municipal survey sheet prepared to collect property tax cannot be treated as a document of title, dismissing a family’s challenge to the inclusion of two houses and two shops in the Waqf register of an Indore mosque.

Justice Vinay Saraf, in a common order pronounced on November 4, 2026, disposed of two civil revisions. The court affirmed the Waqf Tribunal Chairman’s order of October 25, 2018 and set aside the State Member’s order of November 15, 2018, except its finding on limitation.

The dispute concerns survey numbers 7156 and 7157, measuring 0.042 hectare at Kidwai Marg, Barwali Chowki, Indore. Syed Hafiz Ali and five others approached the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995, seeking a declaration of title, possession and injunction, and cancellation of an October 22, 1997 entry in the Waqf register.

They claimed the properties belonged to their grandfather, Mir Mohammad Ali Hasan, whose name appears in the 1910 City Survey sheet. They said the Waqf Board added two houses and two shops to the register of Masjid Dhooldhoye on an auditor’s report, without notice or objections, and they learnt of it only in 2009 while planning to rebuild a house.

The M.P. Waqf Board said the grandfather was the mosque’s manager, or Nigran, in 1910. Nyagar Samaj Indore Dhooldhoye Samaj and Anjuman Ahle Sunnat, which manage the mosque, said the properties were dedicated to it in 1929 and tenants have since paid rent to its committee. They alleged collusion with the Board’s then CEO, the plaintiffs’ real brother.

The Tribunal Chairman decided all issues against the plaintiffs and held the suit time-barred. The State Member accepted that the houses were originally owned by the plaintiffs’ grandfather, but rejected the plaint on limitation. The plaintiffs challenged both orders in Civil Revision No. 65 of 2019; the Board and mosque bodies challenged the State Member’s order in Civil Revision No. 168 of 2019.

Advocate Takmeel Nasir, appearing through video conferencing with Advocate Shweta Tuteja, argued for the plaintiffs that the entry was made without the survey and publication procedure under the Act. Advocates Moeed Ali Bohra and Murtaza Bohra, for the Board and mosque bodies, relied on documents dating back to 1929. Advocate Amit Khatri, for respondent No. 6, supported the plaintiffs, while Panel Lawyer Vikas Loomba appeared for the State.

The High Court framed the core question as whether the 1997 amendment added any new property or only clarified the description. It noted that the original 1989 notification registering the mosque’s 12,540 square feet was never challenged, and the total area stayed the same after the amendment. “By mere mentioning the details of the properties, it cannot be accepted that new houses have been included in the list of properties,” the court said, holding that “the challenge to subsequent clarificatory entry is not maintainable.”

On title, the court said “it is settled position of law that plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs and they cannot take advantage of any weakness of the defendants,” adding that a name in a tax survey sheet “cannot be treated as document of title.” The plaintiffs, it said, had “miserably failed to prove their title,” while the defendants produced documents from 1929 onwards, including tax exemption receipts, repair permissions and rent records.

On limitation, the court held the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs’ father in 1929 and in 1944, when his appeal against construction permission granted to the mosque committee was dismissed, yet the first challenge came only on February 16, 2010. The plaintiffs, it said, “tried to put up their staled claim, which had already turned into dead wood due to afflux of time.”

Civil Revision No. 65 of 2019 was dismissed and Civil Revision No. 168 of 2019 was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Syed Hafiz Ali and Others vs. MP Wakf Board and Others with connected matter

Order Date: November 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinay Saraf