Read Time: 05 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Ramasubramanian today reserved order in a plea by Rajasthan Waqf Board challenging the High Court order permitting Jindal Saw Ltd. to remove a dilapidated platform(chabutra) at Tiranga Hills (Pahari) for mining. The Waqf Board has claimed that the structure that has been sought to be demolished is a mosque prominently known as Kalindiri, which is a Waqf property.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner-company that it was allotted a mining lease by the Government of Rajasthan on December 10, 2010, for an area measuring 1556.78 hectares at Bhilwara.

It was also alleged that the revenue records for the years 1923, 1969 and 2012-15, do not record the existence of any alleged mosque in Bhilwara. Further, prior to the allotment of the mining lease, a detailed Khasra-wise report was sought from the Tehsildar, Bhilwara, who provided a detailed Khasra-wise analysis of the complete area falling within the mining lease and according to which, in Khasra No.6731, situated at village Pur, permission was granted for carrying out the mining activities.

However, the Waqf board objected to these arguments stating that the disputed structure is known as Kalindiri Masjid and despite not being in use, can neither be disturbed nor be interfered with as the same is a Waqf property.

It was further argued on behalf of the Waqf Board that the place has been recorded as waqf even in the waqf record and thus the company cannot be allowed to interfere or change the position and also cannot be allowed to remove the structure for the same being Waqf property.  

It was further submitted that if there is any dispute as to whether any property is waqf or not, the same can be decided and considered only by the Waqf Tribunal.

Notably, the High Court, while dismissing the writ, had held that no details were provided by the Waqf Department as to whom and how the present alleged "Waqf Property" was dedicated.

The High Court had further held that mere inclusion of the dilapidated structure in the Notification (18 of 18) [CW-8848/2020] issued by the Waqf Board does not create a valid waqf and the property cannot be said to vest with the Waqf Board.

Jindal Saw Ltd was represented by Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv while State of Rajasthan was represented by Dr. Manish Singhvi , Sr. Adv. The Rajasthan Waqf board was represented by Prashant Bhushan, Advocate.

Case title: Rajasthan Waqf Board Vs Jindal Saw Ltd