1 CGHC010016252022 2026:CGHC:38540-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 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 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.09.02 10:13:45 +0530 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