The Waqf Board’s controversial decision to declare the head office of the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), known as ‘Muglisara’ (Mughal Sarai), as waqf property, has finally been quashed. In November 2021, the Waqf Board partially approved an application and declared the SMC Headquarters as Waqf property. The municipality then challenged the decision in the Waqf Tribunal in a legal battle. The tribunal finally passed an order on 3rd April 2024, dismissing the waqf board’s claim. The tribunal termed the Waqf Board’s order to declare SMC a Waqf property as illegal, against the established judicial principle of law, erroneous and arbitrary. A copy of the order is available with OpIndia.
In 2016, a petition was filed seeking to name the SMC’s main building, known as ‘Mughal Sarai’, in Surat as ‘Humayun Sarai’. The petition was filed by a man named Abdullah Jarullah of Surat, who had demanded that the SMC head office building be registered as the property of the Waqf Board, citing Waqf Act section 36. In 2021, the office building was registered as a ‘Waqf property’ partly in favour of the petitioner. At the same time, the order empowered the Gujarat State Wakf Board to administer the building instead of subjecting it to the SMC.
What was the claim in the petition?
The petition claimed that the building was built during Shah Jahan’s reign. It was then given to his daughter Jahanara Begum in the jagir. Shah Jahan’s trusted person Ishaq Baig Yazdi alias Haqeeqat Khan built this building in 1644 for Rs 33,081. At that time it was named ‘Humayun Sarai’ and this building was donated for Haj pilgrims because Surat was a major port and there was a large movement of passengers there.
The petitioner, Abdullah Jarullah, cited Sharia law and demanded that the waqf board should have the right over the property donated for religious purposes based on a Supreme Court judgment (which held that once the waqf had the property, it remained with the waqf). The petitioner also produced 17 different documents claiming that the four-century-old building was used as a pilgrim’s landing till 1867. Then in 1961, the British made it the office of the municipality and later this building became the head office of the SMC.
The Waqf Board declared the SMC Headquarters Building as its property.
The Waqf Board allowed Jarullah’s application and directed that the main building of the SMC office be declared a Waqf property. Surat Municipal Corporation’s law committee chairman and corporator Naresh Rana and municipal officials opposed the decision. Meanwhile, when the documents were examined in this case, some defects were noticed in it. The whole matter was presented before the Wakf Tribunal. Advocate Kaushik Pandya, appearing for the SMC, presented the arguments before the tribunal.
The tribunal’s strong reaction against the Waqf Board
The Wakf Tribunal, while taking note of the SMC’s plea, made important observations. It said, “The building was built out of the port’s tax and revenue money and not from the personal income of Shah Jahan or Ishaq Baig. Therefore, this property does not fall under the definition of self-acquired property of the Mughals. Due to this the property made from the tax and revenue income of the port cannot be done in the name of Waqf.”
The tribunal said that given the history of the construction of the Mughal Sarai, it has been built from the income of the tax and revenue money of the Surat port as well as from the tax money of the state so it cannot be considered the self-acquired property of the Mughal ruler. A Muslim person can waqf his self-acquired property, but a property built from the income of taxes and revenue money of the state’s port cannot be waqf.
It was further said that the petitioner had submitted only a photocopy of the documents before the Board. As per the provisions of the Evidence Act, the photocopy cannot be termed admissible. The tribunal remarked that the fact that the petitioner had wrongly produced certified copies of the documents even though the petitioner had not produced a photocopy was wrongly shown in the order, which is a matter of shame for a board.
There is no building of this name in Surat: Tribunal
The tribunal clearly stated that it was ordered by the board to register the property as ‘Humayun Sarai Waqf Property’ which is illegal. This property has been known as ‘Mughal Sarai’ since its construction and there is no building named ‘Humayun Sarai’ in ward number 11 of Surat city and the property of City Survey No. 1504 was never known as ‘Humayun Sarai’ in the past.
The order further stated that even though the members and officials of the Board are aware of the fact that the property is ‘Mughal Sarai’ and had known this since the 18th century, and the evidence in this regard has been presented by the petitioner, the Board has made an improper and illegal and failed attempt to put the property on the government record by addressing it as ‘Humayun Sarai’ without verifying and legally examining the application in the name of investigation. It is very shocking for the board to do this. Not only this, the tribunal also termed the decision as tarnishing the reputation of the board.
It is also necessary to note here that the inscription which was referred to by the petitioner to declare the building as Waqf was referred to as ‘Waqf Deed’ and there is no mention of any Mutawalli (a kind of trustee) in that inscription. The petitioner had mentioned in his petition that he was the Mutawalli there. Taking note of this serious matter, the Tribunal noted, “While studying the case paper, the petitioner submitted an affidavit that he was the Mutawalli of the disputed property. He was never the Mutawallis of this building, and it is a criminal act for him to do so.”
The tribunal quashed the order
Taking note of all the facts and information, the Tribunal held that the order of the Gujarat State Waqf Board on 25th November 2021 to register the property of Ward No. 11, City Survey No. 11, 1504 of Surat City as ‘Humayun Sarai’ Waqf property was illegal, against the prevailing judicial principle of law, erroneous and arbitrary and in the interest of justice, it is void and arbitrary.
The tribunal, while allowing the application of the Surat Municipal Corporation, quashed the waqf’s illegal order and held that the disputed property should be known as ‘Mughal Sarai’.
SMC’s hard work paid off
The Gandhinagar Waqf Tribunal exempted the SMC headquarters building from the possession of waqf. In this regard, OpIndia contacted Naresh Rana. He is the chairman of the law committee of Surat Municipal Corporation and a local corporator. He said, “When I was appointed as chairman 6-7 months ago, this whole thing came to our notice. After closely examining the documents related to it, the claim of the Waqf Board was found to be unconstitutional. That is why we, senior advocate Kaushik Pandya and the team of SMC’s Law Committee fought this case and the SMC has won. Everyone’s hard work has paid off.”
