Supreme Court Upholds Mining Lease, Dismisses Waqf Board’s Claim Over Dilapidated Structure (29 April 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dilapidated structure on a mining lease area, claimed as a waqf, can prevent mining activities.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Waqf Law, Mining Law

Case Name: Waqf Board, Rajasthan vs. Jindal Saw Limited & Ors.

Judgment Date: 29 April 2022

Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2788 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16196 of 2021)
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a structure, claimed to be a mosque, halt mining operations on a leased land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether a dilapidated structure qualified as a waqf property under the Waqf Act, 1995. The Court examined the evidence presented by the Waqf Board and the mining company, ultimately ruling in favor of the mining lease. This judgment clarifies the criteria for establishing a waqf and its implications for land use.

Case Background

The case involves a mining lease granted to Jindal Saw Limited (the writ petitioner) on 8 December 2010, for mining various minerals in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The Waqf Board, Rajasthan, claimed that a structure within the lease area, known as ‘Tiranga Ki Qalandari Masjid,’ was a waqf property and thus mining activities should not be allowed. The mining lease was granted for land including Khasra No. 6731. The Waqf Board’s claim was based on a 1965 notification and subsequent surveys that identified the structure as a waqf property. However, the mining company argued that the structure was dilapidated, not in use as a mosque, and not located on the land leased to them. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the writ petition filed by the mining company, directing the Waqf Board not to interfere with the mining operations. This order was challenged by the Waqf Board before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the writ petition filed by the mining company, directing the Waqf Board not to interfere with the mining operations. The High Court constituted an Expert Committee to examine whether the structure was a mosque and if it could be removed for mining activities. The Committee reported that the structure was neither a mosque nor of historical importance. The Waqf Board challenged this order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the matter should be decided by the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and not in a writ petition.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Waqf Act, 1995. Section 3(r) of the Act defines “waqf” as:

“[(r) “waqf” means the permanent dedication by any person, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by the Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable and includes—
(i) a waqf by user but such waqf shall not cease to be a waqf by reason only of the user having ceased irrespective of the period of such cesser;
(ii) a Shamlat Patti, Shamlat Deh, Jumla Malkkan or by any other name entered in a revenue record;
(iii) xxx xxx”

The Court also considered the conditions of the mining lease, which prohibited mining on public or sacred grounds as determined by the State Government. The Waqf Act, 1995, establishes the Waqf Tribunal as the primary authority for resolving disputes related to waqf properties. The Court also considered the survey reports and the report of the expert committee constituted by the High Court.

Arguments

Arguments by the Waqf Board:

• The Waqf Board argued that the structure was a waqf property based on the 1965 notification and subsequent survey reports.
• They contended that the issue of whether the structure is a waqf should be decided by the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and not by the High Court in a writ petition.
• They stated that the Expert Committee constituted by the High Court did not include a representative of the Waqf Board, and therefore, the report could not be relied upon.

Arguments by the Mining Company:

• The mining company argued that the structure was dilapidated, not in use as a mosque, and not located on the land leased to them.
• They pointed out that the structure was located on Survey No. 931, which was not part of the lease area (Khasra No. 6731).
• They highlighted the discrepancies in the area of the mosque as reported in various documents of the Waqf Board.
• They relied on the Tehsildar’s report prior to the lease, which excluded religious structures from the lease area, and the Expert Committee’s report that the structure had no religious or historical significance.

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan:

• The State of Rajasthan argued that the decision as to whether the place is a public ground over which the mining activity can be carried out has to be determined by the State Government.
• The State Government has determined that mining lease is not permissible over Survey No. 6731.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issues that were considered were:

1. Whether the structure in question was a waqf property as defined under Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in deciding the matter through a writ petition instead of referring it to the Waqf Tribunal.
3. Whether the mining lease could be allowed on the land in question.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Waqf Act, 1995: Specifically, Section 3(r), which defines “waqf.” The Court examined the definition to determine whether the structure met the criteria for being considered a waqf.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995 to define “waqf” and found that the structure did not meet the criteria.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the Waqf Board’s claim that the structure was a waqf property. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Location of the Structure: The structure was located on Survey No. 931, not on the leased land (Khasra No. 6731).
• Lack of Evidence of Waqf: There was no proof of dedication, user, or grant to establish the structure as a waqf under Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995.
• Dilapidated Condition: The structure was dilapidated, without a roof, and not in use as a mosque.
• Discrepancies in Area: There were inconsistencies in the reported area of the structure in the Waqf Board’s documents.
• Expert Committee Report: The Expert Committee reported that the structure had no historical or archaeological significance.

The court also noted that the letter dated 17.4.2012 by the Anjuman Committee was based upon hearsay and is not of any binding value.

The Court also noted that the State Government’s stand that they have identified it to be a religious structure comprising in Khasra No. 6731 was not produced on record. There is nothing on record that such decision if any, was arrived at after associating the writ petitioner.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the Waqf Board’s claim that the structure was a waqf, stating, “There is no allegation or proof of either of dedication or user or grant which can be termed as a waqf within the meaning of the Act.”

The Court also noted, “The report of the experts is relevant only to the extent that the structure has no archaeological or historical importance. In the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers/Namaaz.”

The Court further stated, “The stand of the State Government that they have identified it to be a religious structure comprising in Khasra No. 6731 has not been produced on record. There is nothing on record that such decision if any, was arrived at after associating the writ petitioner.”

Key Takeaways

• A structure cannot be considered a waqf property without proper evidence of dedication, user, or grant.
• The location of the structure is crucial in determining its relevance to a mining lease.
• Dilapidated structures without proof of religious use cannot be considered religious places under the Waqf Act, 1995.
• Expert committee reports can be considered when evaluating the historical or religious significance of a structure.
• The State Government must follow the principles of natural justice while exercising its powers under a lease deed.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s order, allowing the mining activities to proceed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a structure to be considered a waqf, there must be evidence of dedication, user, or grant, as defined under Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The decision reinforces the importance of factual evidence and proper documentation in determining the status of a waqf property. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Waqf Board’s claim and allowing the mining company to proceed with its operations. The Court emphasized the absence of evidence to support the claim that the dilapidated structure was a waqf property, and highlighted that the structure was not located on the leased land. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the definition of “waqf” under the Waqf Act, 1995, and the necessity of providing concrete evidence to support such claims.

Category

Parent Category: Waqf Law

Child Categories:

• Waqf Act, 1995
• Section 3(r), Waqf Act, 1995
• Mining Law
• Civil Law

FAQ

Q: What is a waqf property?
A: A waqf property is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for a purpose recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious, or charitable. It can include a waqf by user.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the Waqf Board’s claim that a dilapidated structure was a waqf property and upheld the mining lease granted to Jindal Saw Limited.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court rule against the Waqf Board?
A: The Court found no evidence of dedication, user, or grant to establish the structure as a waqf. It was also located on a different survey number than the leased land and was in a dilapidated condition.

Q: What is the significance of Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995?
A: Section 3(r) defines “waqf” under the Waqf Act, 1995. The Court used this definition to determine whether the structure in question met the criteria for being considered a waqf.

Q: Can a structure be considered a waqf if it is not currently in use?
A: A waqf by user can still be considered a waqf even if the user has ceased, but there must be evidence of prior use and dedication. A dilapidated structure without such evidence cannot be considered a waqf.