The Rajasthan High Court has initiated suo motu proceedings following reports that numerous properties in Jodhpur, including official residences of judges, educational institutions, and places of worship, have been inaccurately designated as Waqf properties in official records. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, took cognisance of a report by Dainik Bhaskar, which alleged that these properties were erroneously recorded in the Waqf Gazette and on the Umeed Portal, despite contrary revenue records.
Court’s Interim Order and Directions
In a significant interim order dated July 27, the Court mandated maintaining the status quo concerning the ownership and legal status of properties listed under Khasra Nos. 482, 485, and 490, as well as those mentioned in the news report. The Court restrained any alterations, including mutation, transfer, lease, or construction activities, based on the disputed entries. Furthermore, the District Collector of Jodhpur was instructed to safeguard all pertinent revenue records and to perform a physical inspection of the land, documenting the process with photographs and GPS data.
Additionally, the Chief Executive Officer of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf was directed to present the complete original documentation relating to the inclusion of these properties in the Waqf Gazette and on the Umeed Portal. The District Minority Welfare Officer has been asked to clarify the data-entry procedures conducted for the Umeed Portal.
Properties and Legal Implications
The report highlights several properties, including educational institutions such as Sohanlal Manihar School and Shah Govardhanlal Kabra College, as well as temples like Agarwal Mahavir Temple and Satguru Kabir Ashram. Notably, these properties also encompass the residences of sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and former Jharkhand Chief Justice Prakash Tatia.
The Court expressed concerns over the discrepancies between public records and the Waqf entries, emphasizing that any conflicting entries must be legally justified under the Waqf Act, 1995, and other relevant statutes. It warned against unilateral entries altering property character without legal adherence, citing potential issues of arbitrariness and unlawful deprivation of property.
More Read
Constitutional Perspectives and Further Proceedings
While recognizing the protection of religious rights under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, the Court clarified that such rights do not permit the State to unilaterally assign proprietary status to property based on religious claims. It stressed that any changes to lawful religious endowments must comply with legal procedures.
Given the magnitude of the properties involved, notices were issued to the Union government, State government, and local authorities in Jodhpur. Advocates Moti Singh and Abhishek Mehta have been appointed as amici curiae to assist the Court. The matter is slated for further hearing on August 11.
