The truth about 123 Waqf properties in Delhi the Central government wants to acquire

2
132

By Syed Khalique Ahmed & Anwarulhaq Beg

NEW DELHI—What is the truth about 123 Muslim properties including mosques, graveyards, mausoleums and madrasas (religious schools) which the BJP government at the Centre wants to acquire through misinterpretation of legal provisions? 

The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on February 7, 2023, put up notices outside these properties, claiming that they are no longer properties of the Delhi Wakf Board even though a case about all these properties is pending for hearing before the Delhi High Court. The case has been filed by the Board itself.

The Delhi Waqf Board(DWB) is comprised of six Sunni and one Shia Muslim representatives. While Sunni Muslim members make decisions in respect of the Sunni waqf properties, Shia members decide about the Shia waqf properties, by provisions of the Waqf Act, 2013.)

The notices pasted outside the Waqf properties resulted in a strong reaction from the Muslim community members because these are religious properties and are in continuous use for religious purposes. These are not properties gifted by the government to the Muslim community but the personal and private properties of Muslims who donated them exclusively for use for religious purposes. The Waqf properties cannot be sold out to any private party or even to the government because of their very nature of being religious properties. However, they can be developed, rented out and its revenue can be used for charitable and religious activities.

According to Islamic waqf laws, the ultimate owner of a waqf property is Allah, not any individual or the government. The individual, or any organization appointed or set up by the government for waqf properties can only manage it. In simple words, the government or the individual can only act as trustees of waqf properties, not their owners. Once a property is waqfed, it will always remain a waqf property. Even the donor of the property cannot claim it back.

Why this controversy?

But why this controversy about these properties all of a sudden when they have been in use for religious purposes ever since they were donated?

The issue was discussed threadbare by experts involved in Waqf-related properties at a discussion organized at the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) headquarters here last week. The JIH is one of the leading religio-cultural organizations of Indian Muslims.

JIH assistant secretary Inamur Rahman Khan, giving the background of the case, said that the dispute about these properties originated during the British period between 1911 and 1915 when the British government went ahead to acquire properties around Raisina Hills to develop a new capital of India.

As the villages around Raisina Hills were Muslim-dominated, they had mosques, madrasas, mausoleums and graveyards. The then British government went ahead to acquire these religious properties as well. So, what is Lutyens Delhi today comprising the President of India’s House, Parliament, all the buildings of various ministries, India Gate, bungalows and houses around the Parliament and Connaught Place, were all Muslim properties before the British rulers shifted their capital from Kolkata to Delhi.

However, this action of the British government led to strong discontentment among the Muslims. Finally, an agreement was reached between the British government and the Muslims under which the government agreed to spare the religious properties and left its management with the Muslims.

This agreement regarding properties was registered as Muslim religious properties with the British government. When ‘Sunni Majlis Auqaf’ was formed by the British government to manage properties donated by Muslims for religious use only, all these 123 properties were transferred to Sunni Majlis Auqaf through registered agreements by the British Crown acting through the Commissioner of Delhi between 1943 to 1945, without any limitation of time.

After Independence, these were transferred to the DWB which is the successor of the Sunni Majlis Auqaf. These properties have been in use for religious purposes of the Muslim community for more than 100 years.

DDA and L&DO claimed ownership of waqf properties, Congress govt formed panels to identify waqf properties

According to Mr Inam, the 123 properties were notified as waqfs in the Delhi Gazette on April 16, 1970, and December 31, 1970, under the Waqf Act 1954. However, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and Land and Development Office (L&DO) challenged these notifications and filed declaratory suits claiming ownership of these waqf properties. All these properties are located in prime areas of the national capital.

Muslims felt aggrieved by the actions of the central government agencies. The then Congress government headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi formed the Mir Nasrulla Committee. The committee identified more than 400 waqf properties in Delhi. This led to a lot of hue and cry in the central government as a large number of these properties were under use by the Central government in Delhi. If the recommendation of the Nasrulla committee were implemented, the centralgovernment would have been forced to vacate these properties or to compensate the legal heirs of these waqf properties and in this case, the DWB.

To avoid complications, Mrs Indira Gandhi formed the Syed Muzaffar Hussain Burney Committee in 1974 to identify the Waqf properties in Delhi. Mr Burney, an IAS officer, was DWB chairman at that time.

The Burney committee submitted its report in March 1976, identifying 274 waqf properties in Delhi, including 123 properties that the Central government now wants to acquire, claiming that these are government properties, and not waqf property.

The Burney panel recommended that the government hand over the 123 waqf properties to the DWB. However, the Burney committee was silent about 124 other properties which was also identified as waqf property. Why did it not recommend the transfer of these properties to the DWB? No one in the DWB or even the current public representatives of the DWB is in a position to say anything about it. However, those connected with the development say that the 124 properties were under the possession of the central government and big official complexes had been built over them. Had the Burney recommended the transfer of these properties as well, it would have created lot of problems for the central government.

But the reports of the Mir Nasrullah and the Burney panel reports indicate that a large chunk of wakf land was illegally grabbed by private individuals and government agencies, with their rightful owners having been kept aside. As the Muslim community in Delhi had suffered heavily during the Partition, it could not take appropriate measures to claim and protect the wakf properties worth thousands of crores of rupees at existing real estate prices. Had these properties been with their legal heirs, like ‘mutawallis,’ or the DWB in case of absence of ‘mutawallis’, these could have yielded income of hundreds of crores of rupees annually that would have been enough to run big educational institutions and hospitals in and around Delhi.

Based on the Burney Committee’s recommendation, the Congress government in a Cabinet meeting on January 31, 1984, decided to transfer these properties to their “mutawallis” (managing trustees) through a perpetual lease for a nominal annual rent of Rs. 1 per acre.

Burney panel’s mistakes, the Congress government’s lack of sincerity about waqf properties

Burney committee’s recommendations to hand over properties to their lawful owners, though on a perpetual lease, was highly ridiculous. The committee also simultaneously held that ownership of properties would remain with the Central government. The recommendations were highly contradictory to the waqf laws. Under the waqf laws, the ownership of waqf properties rests with Allah, not any individual or the government. The individuals or the government or any institution set up for its managements, are merely trustees of the waqf properties. When the Burney committee had accepted that the 123 properties were waqf properties, this meant that these properties did not belong to the government.

So, the Burney panel made two mistakes: it suggested to transfer the waqf properties to the DWB on leasehold basis. and held that the ownership of waqf properties would be with the Central government. How can ownership of waqf properties be given to the government when the government is not its owner? Under waqf laws, the ultimate owner of a waqf proper is Allah, and not any individual or the government? And there was no logic in giving the waqf properties to waqf board through leasehold based on annual rent?

Moreover, these properties were not in the possession of the government but in the possession of individuals or ‘mutawallis’ who managed and used them for religious purposes. The government can lease out or sell only those properties of which it is the owner. In this particular case, the properties in question are not owned by the government. So, the Burney committee’s recommendation to transfer the 123 properties to their legal owners on lease rent defies logic.  After the Burney committee clearly established that the 123 properties were waqf properties, the government must have withdrawn the claims of the DDA and L&DO from these properties. This indicates the lack of sincerity about the intentions of the Congress government.

Burney panel’s flawed recommendation provides chance to VHP to intervene: Mr Inamurrahman

The Cabinet decision to perpetually lease out the waqf properties to their own users since the British period was not only funny but also provided an opportunity for the Vishva Hindu Parishad to jump into the fray.

Mr Inam said that the Indraprastha Vishwa Hindu Parishad (IVHP) challenged the Congress government’s cabinet decision in the Delhi High Court before it could be implemented. The IVHP contended that it was ready to pay a higher annual lease rent of Rs.100 per acre.  

Mr. Inam held that due to the flawed recommendation stipulating that the ownership of the properties would remain with the Union Government while the Delhi Waqf Board could only utilize them as tenants, despite the government’s decision to return them, the transfer of properties remained stalled. The High Court then issued a stay order that remained in effect until 2011.

Properties should be returned as waqf properties, not on leasehold basis: Mr Inamurrahman

Mr. Inam said that Waqf bodies had also opposed the Burney Committee’s recommendation regarding the lease, questioning why the Waqf Board should pay any lease for properties that already belong to it. During the court hearings spreading over decades, the court observed that Waqf properties, being vested in the name of God, could not be owned by the government. Therefore, the properties should be returned to the Waqf Board, not on a leasehold basis, but as Waqf properties. On January 12, 2011, the court ordered the government to decide the matter within six months. However, it took more than three years for the government to act on the court’s directions.

The UPA government led by Congress on March 2, 2014, announced the de-notification of 123 properties in March 2014 and hand them over to the Delhi Waqf Board.


UPA Govt decides to transfer properties to DWB after too much delay, VHP moves ECI & Delhi High Court

As a consequence, the UPA government, on March 5, 2014, withdrew from the acquisition of the 123 properties u/s 93 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013. This allowed the DWB to claim ownership of the said government properties. However, the ownership transfer could not take place because the VHP filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India and also moved the Delhi High Court against the government’s decision.


According to Mr. Inam, the properties had been under the unauthorized possession of the Land and Development Office (L&DO) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), located in prime locations such as Connaught Place, Ashok Road, Babar Road, Lodhi Road, Mathura Road, Pandara Road, Daryaganj, Jungpura, and Karol Bagh. As many as 61 of these properties were under the possession of L&DO under the Union Urban Development Ministry, while 62 others were under the DDA.

Mr. Inam lamented that the UPA government’s attempt to rectify the historical injustices inflicted upon Islamic endowments by the British Raj since 1914 was not favourably met by the subsequent NDA-led government that came to power in May 2014. While disposing of a petition filed by the VHP against the decision to de-notify 123 properties, the High Court directed the Centre to take an appropriate decision in August 2014.

NDA Govt reviews the decision of UPA Govt

To review the previous UPA government’s decision, the NDA-led government formed a one-man committee of retired Delhi Higher Judicial Service officer, JR Aryan in May 2016, asking to submit a report within six months. The Aryan committee submitted its report in June 2017 report. But it was not made public. It was also not shared with the DWB. But those connected with the DWB say that the Aryan committee reportedly recommended granting the Delhi Waqf Commissioner the final say on the ownership of the 123 Waqf properties.

Dissatisfied with this recommendation, the Union government appointed a two-member committee in August 2018 to reassess the status of the 123 properties. The two-member committee, in its report to L&DO, stated that the DWB is not a stakeholder in the 123 properties in question. L&DO in its letter dated February 8, 2023, intimated that “the DWB has been absolved of all matters pertaining to the 123 properties listed as waqf properties”. L&DO letter said that the two-member committee had given enough opportunities to the DWB to “appear before the Committee or to file representation/written statement/objection” in support of their claim to the 123 government properties as “waqf properties.” However, the DWB failed to submit objections or make representations before the two-member committee.

NDA Govt removes DWB as a stakeholder in 123 properties

Based on the two-member panel report, L&DO stated that “It is evident from the above facts that Delhi Waqf Board does not have any stake in the listed properties, neither have they shown any interest in the properties nor filed any objections or claims. It is, therefore, decided to absolve Delhi Waqf Board from all matters pertaining to ‘123 Waqf Properties.’ Physical inspection of all 123 properties shall also be carried out.”

Central govt removing DWB from ownership of 123 properties violates religious rights: Amanatullah Khan

Rejecting the claims of the two-member committee, DWB chairman Amanatullah Khan wrote to L&DO officer saying that the board had filed all objections and claims before the one-member committee because the one-member committee has sought its objections. But the two-member committee never issued any notice to the DWB asking for its objections and claims. “There was no occasion for the Delhi Waqf Board to respond to any objection or claim. Hence, it is absolutely farcical to say that there is any lapse or display of interest on the part of the Delhi Waqf Board,” Mr Khan said in his letter.

In his reply, Mr Khan also informed that the DWB had challenged the appointment of the two-member committee. The board, he said, filed a writ petition (C) No. 1961 of 2022 in the Delhi High Court challenging the appointment of the two- member committee. The high court, on February 1, 2022, issued notices to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs as Respondent No 1 and the Delhi Development authority as Respondent No. 2.

He contended that this petition is still pending before the High Court. He claimed that a copy of the writ petition was also submitted to the two-member committee on May 13, 2022, with a request not to go ahead with its investigation till the order of the High Court on the DWB petition.

The DWB chairman told the L&DO that “when the High Court is seized with the Delhi Waqf Board’s writ petition (C) no. 1961 of 2022, any action on your part will be an act of overreaching the authority of the Honourable High court.”

Mr Khan also referred to the Supreme Court judgements in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshamindra Thirta Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) and in Ratilal Prachanda Gandhi vs State of Bombay (1954). The apex court in the two judgements, Mr Khan argued, has “authoritatively laid down that a law which takes away the right of administration altogether from the religious denomination and vests it in any other or secular authority, would amount to violation of the right which is guaranteed by Article 26(d) of the Constitution.”

“In view of the above reasons, it is absolutely wrong and erroneous to conclude that the Delhi Waqf Board does not have any stake in the listed properties. It is equally wrong to say that the Delhi Waqf Board has not shown its interest in the properties. Resultantly, the decision to absolve Delhi Waqf Board from any matter pertaining to the 123 waqf properties is fundamentally wrong, whimsical and against the law and discipline,” he concludes in the latter.

He asked the L&DO to refrain from physical inspection of the 123 properties, without representatives from the DWB. However, the High Court allowed the government to go ahead with physical inspection without causing any damage to the properties in question.

Need to prepare proper strategy to protect waqf properties

Highlighting the lack of awareness, insensitivity, and detachment among the Muslim community towards the protection of Waqf properties, Mr Inam blamed the community for lacking a proper protection strategy or a comprehensive plan for utilizing these valuable properties, amidst the government’s ill intentions towards Waqf properties across the country.

(Mr. Inam held that a private member’s bill was recently introduced in Parliament, seeking to repeal the Waqf Act 1995, due to the lack of attention from the community. BJP Member of Parliament Harnath Singh Yadav introduced the Bill on December 9, 2023, prompting strong objections from Opposition parties. Despite these objections, the Waqf Repeal Bill, 2022 was approved with 53 votes in favour and 32 against.)

Emphasizing that Waqf properties belong to the entire Muslim community, Mr. Inam called for a united effort involving all stakeholders, including religious leaders, community organizations, and government bodies, to work together toward the effective management and protection of waqf properties. He stressed that proper management of Waqf properties could significantly alleviate poverty and other issues like education, literacy, and unemployment within the community.

Highlighting the growing anxiety and resentment among the Muslim community over the government’s move to take over 123 properties, Mr. Inam noted that various concerned individuals and activists have undertaken initiatives to rescue them. One such effort involved a consultative meeting of all custodians and administrators of the 123 properties at the headquarters of Anjuman-e-Haideri, a prominent Shia organization, in Karbala, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. During this meeting, Advocate Syed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi, General Secretary of Anjuman-e-Haideri, was named as a petitioner in the case.

Burney panel’s report is “ridiculous”: Adv Abbas Naqvi

Presenting the legal aspects of the case, Advocate Abbas Naqvi termed the Burney Committee’s recommendation to return 123 properties to the Waqf on a leasehold basis as ridiculous. He stated that this recommendation was merely a suggestion, not a law or an act of Parliament. According to Naqvi, any land transfer must occur under a legal framework, and if the government takes over a Waqf property, it must be done through an acquisition process. Since there was no acquisition in this case, the question of returning a property does not arise.

Advocate Naqvi further emphasized that various Supreme Court judgments have established the principle that “once a Waqf, always a Waqf.” This principle renders the Burney Committee’s recommendation invalid, that provided VHP with an opportunity to challenge it in court in 1984.

Addressing the issue of the 123 properties, which resurfaced in 2014 when the UPA-led government issued a de-notification, Advocate Naqvi questioned the legality of the action. He argued that de-notification was inappropriate as the properties were never notified, acquired, or processed for acquisition through any relevant legal laws. Naqvi characterized the de-notification as “illegal and baseless” and stated that it provided the VHP another opportunity to challenge the decision in court. Consequently, the court left the matter to the Union government, which had previously declared the properties as Waqf, he added.

Commenting on the BJP government’s rejection of the single-member committee report it had appointed, Naqvi noted that the report supported Waqf’s ownership of the properties due to their religious nature and usage. Naqvi asserted that the appointment of the single-member committee itself was invalid, stating that no individual has the right to change the rightful ownership of land. He argued that if the government wished to acquire property, it must follow due process, which was not done in this case.

Advocate Naqvi informed that Anjuman-e-Haideri, along with other custodians of religious places, actively participated in all meetings of both the one-man and two-man committees as the notifications of meetings were published in newspapers and presented evidence and suggestions.

Removing Wakf board from ownership of wakf properties is unfounded: Adv Naqvi

Challenging both the two-member panel report and the government’s claim that the Waqf Board’s non-appearance as an owner justified the lapse of ownership rights, Advocate Abbas clarified the Wakf Board works as a custodian, not an owner. Highlighting that the Waqf Board itself functions as a government body with state-appointed members, he said that the government’s claim to acquire Waqf properties based solely on the Board’s non-appearance is unfounded. “Ultimately, ownership of Waqf properties rests with the entire Muslim community, with Allah holding the ultimate claim,” he added.

(Meanwhile, the High Court has rejected another plea by the Waqf Board to halt the L&DO’s ongoing physical inspection and survey of the 123 properties. However, the court instructed the authorities to minimize disruption to the properties’ daily activities.)

Maintain proper document of Waqf properties: Adv Naqvi

Advocate Abbas emphasized the need to protect the existing legal framework and ensure transparent and accountable management of waqf properties. He asked the community to maintain proper ownership documentation to ensure their rightful use. He emphasized the need for extensive awareness campaigns and educational initiatives to educate the Muslim community about the importance and value of waqf. He advocated for pursuing legal avenues to challenge any attempts to encroach or misappropriate waqf properties.

About 8.5 lakh Waqf properties, spanning over 8 lakh acres of land are currently under the control of Waqf Boards of different states in India, making them the third largest landholder in the country, only after the Army and Railways. The Waqf Act of 1954 was passed by the Jawaharlal Nehru government to improve the supervision and administration of waqfs, leading to the centralization of waqfs and the establishment of the Central Waqf Council in 1964. Central Waqf Council is a statutory body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, gives advice to the Central Government on matters concerning the working of the Waqf Boards and the administration of Islamic endowments. The Waqf Act, 1995 governs all Waqf properties in India, providing a framework for their management and protection. There are currently 30 State Waqf Boards in India, across 28 states and union territories, which were established by the state governments to manage, regulate, and protect Waqf properties.

Here is list of 123 properties.

Properties with the Land & Development Office:

1. 1/1, Abdul Nabi Mosque, Mathura Road.2.  2/1, Babar Shah, Mosque & Takia, near Tilak Bridge.

3.  6/1, Babar Road Mosque near Railway Line and School.

4. 47/1, Nizam Gali House Mosque inside Nizam Palace.

5. 61/1, Abdul Haq Mosque, opposite Vidya Bhavan, Curzon Road.

6. 64/1, Graveyard, behind Indian Express, Mathura Road.7.  57/1, Mosque and Dargah Sayed, Babar-uddin Smaj Gandhi, behind Ferozeshah Kotla.

8. 68/1, Qabristan Quadim South Indraprastha, Mathura Road.9.  72/1, Dargah Hazrat Qutab Hadev Sheikh Mohd. Chisti Mohd. Ki Bai near Vikas Minar.

10.  3/1, Minto Bridge Mosque between K & L Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

11.  9/1, Mosque behind (Inside) Irwin Hospital Compound.

12.  29/1, Pucca Mazar near Mosque inside J.P.Hospital.

13.  11/1, Ghosian Mosque alias Jheel ki Piao, opposite Link House, Mathura Road.

14.  20/1, Tomb of Shah Sardulla Gulshan near Plaza Cinema, `H Block.

15.  27/1, Mirdard Road Mosque & Mazar of Shah Walivia Mohd. Behind Irwin Hospital.

16.  39/1, Dargah Sheikh Kalimullah Shahib Jahana Badi Delhi Parade Ground near Red Fort.

17.  40/1, Dargah Sadauddin Ibas Bhorey Shah Sahib, Delhi Parade Ground near Red Fort.

18.  46/1, Mosque Inside Maulana Azad Medical College Compound, Mathura Road.

19.  49/1, Masjid & Graveyard Fazal Mohd. Ramlila Ground, Turkman Gate

20.  58/1, Mirdard Mosque Dargah & Masjid Khwaja, Barron Road.

21.  67/1, Dargah Pare Bharey Sahib, `A Ward-II, opposite Jama Masjid.

22.  66/1, Graveyard, Ludlo Castle, Delhi.

23.  69/1, Rasaleywali Mosque, Civil Line Area Timarpur.

24.  50/1, Masjid Karnal road near Gurudwara.

25.  55/1, Dargah Shah Bade, Civil Line Zone, Bela Road.

26.  42/1,Pahari Wali Mosque, near Khyber Pass, Civil Lane, Mall Road.

27.  34/1, Masjid Tibia College, Ajmal Khan Road, KarolBagh.

28.  24/2, Mosque & Graveyard, Chausath Khamba.

29.  18/2, Muslim Graveyard containing Mazar Sayed Lala-ud-Din, behind Kothi No.4, Curzon Road.

30.  7/1, Zapta Ganj Mosque, near India Gate, Man Singh Road.

31.  23/1, Willesly Road Mosque, inside Kaka Nagar.

32.  33/1, Masjid Motilal Nehru Marg, New Delhi between Kothi No.13 & 15 (Bujia & Mosque)

33.  43/1, Kaka Nagar, Welleslay Road, New Delhi( Mosque & Mazar Bibi Fatima), New Delhi

34  44/1, Kaka Nagar Welleslay Road, New Delhi (Mosque & Mazar Bibi Fatima).

35.  62/1, Babri Mosque, Pandara Road, New Delhi.

36.  3/2, Mosque, Lajpat Nagar in front of Frank Anothony Primary School, New Delhi.

37.  4/2, Mosque Maqbara Basti, Basti Sewa Nagar-VIII, Aliganj, New Delhi.

38.  5/2, Masjid & Dargah Fateh Shah Abdul Quadir, Basti Nizamuddin, New Delhi to

The West of Maqbara Humayun, New Delhi.

39.  Muslim Graveyard, Village Aliganj adjacent to Kalan Masjid, Ferozeshah towards South Graveyard Area.

40.  13/2, Muslim Graveyard, Village Aliganj, opposite Southern Gate of Dargah Nizamuddin Aulia alongside Lodi Road.

41.  19/2, Muslim Graveyard, Village Aliganj alongwith Link Road.

42.  20/2, Masjid Chakkar-wali, Basti Nizamuddin.

43.  21/2, Muslim Graveyard, Jangpura.

44  1/3, Muslim Graveyard, Village Aliganj, Khasra No.529.

45.  4/1, Mosque near Hanuman Mandir, Irwin Road.

46.  5/1, Western Court Mosque, Janpath.

47.  12/1, Dhobian Mosque near Link Road.

48.  13/1, Mazar Khudanuma, New Link Road on the Hill.

49.  14/1, Masjid Munirka Village, close to Market V, R.K.Puram.

50.  22/1, Ashoka Road Mosque.

51.  32/1, Masjid Chitra Gupta Road.

52.  45/1, Sunehri Bagh Road near Udyog Bhawan Mosque.

53.  59/1, Kalali Bagh Mosque near Albert Square, R.K.Marg.

54.  60/1, Jama Masjid I Red Cross Road near Parliament House.

55.  73/1, Dargah & Mosque Abdul Saleem opposite Naraina Hotel near Lady Harding Hospital .

56.  25/2, Imamia Hall, NDMC Block IX on P.K.Road.

57.  35/1, Masjid Shanti Niwas, Connaught Place

58.  Grave near `H.10 todarmal Lane, Bengali Market.

59.  48/1, Mohalla Qabristan, Turkman Gate (Grave).

60.  47/1, Mosque Hazi Ismail Japanwala.

61.  51/1, Muslim Graveyard near Wazirabad Bridge.

Properties with the Delhi Development Authority:

1.   Dargah Hare Bhare Kh.No. 152, inside city wall bearing H.No.29G to 39G

Ward No.II, Opp. Jama Masjid

2.  Masjid Boriwali Kh.No.45, H.No.5052 Ward II, Daryaganj North.

3.  Madarsa Islamia Kh.No.199, 408/199 H.No.552 to 557 Ward No.XIII, Sadar Bazar North.

4.  Masjid Takiawali, Kh.No.334, H.No.6435 Sadar Bazar South.

5.  Masjid Kaptanwali Kh.No.611/514, H.No.90,118 to 120, Ward No.XVI, Karolbagh, Faiz Road.

6.  Masjid Aamwali, Kh.No.109, H.No.1617 to 1619, 1699 to 1703 Ward No.III, B.B.Road.

7.  Bara Hindu Rao, Kh.No.12, H.No.7831, Ward No.XIV, Shidipura.

8.  Dargah Mammu Bhanja, Kh.No.16, Ward No.XV, Jhandewalan.

9.  Mazar Bholu Shah, Kh.No.168 Ward No.III, H.No.4297/2, Sadar Bazar North.

10.  Mosque Belanwali, Kh.No.28 Ward No.XI, H.No.5033 to 5034, Daryaganj North.

11.  Qadam Sharif Bagichi Alluddin, Kh.No.31, H.No.10394 to 10398, Ward No.XV.

12.  Lal Mosque, Kh.No.1, Property No.5161 to 5163 and 5170, Ward No.VII, G.B.Road, Lahori Gate.

13.  Dargah graveyard in Hind Park, Kh No.18-19, Ward No.XI, Daryaganj South.

14.  Tomb and grave, Kh. No.139, inside city wall, H.No.2116, Ward No.X, Turkman Gate near Police Post.

15.  Masjid Khajoorwali, Khajoor Road, Kh.No.559/256-257, H.No.456 to 459, 472 to 475, Ward No.XVI, Karolbagh, Khazoor Road.

16.  Chuja Mem Kh.No.223 in H.No.6686, Ward No.XIII, Sadar Bazar North Mohalla.

17.  Naiwala Estate, Kh.No.934, H.No.1608 and 1609 Ward No.XVI, Karolbagh.

18.  Quadam Sharif, Kh.No.94, H.No.3666, Ward NoXIV.

19.  Naiwala Estate, Kh.No.1319/298/I and 299. H.No.2522, Karolbagh.

20.  Naiwala Estate, Kh.No.277-278, 279, H.No.2551-57 Ward No.XVI, Karolbagh.

21.  Quatab Road, H.No.3507 and 3531 to 3534, Ward No.XIV, Khasra No.28 1/1, Sadar Bazar South.

22.  Dargah Hazarat Khwaja Bakibillah, Kh.No.119, Qadam Sharif, H.No.5659 and 5712, Ward No.XV Qutab Road.

23.  Masjid & Graveyard, Kh.No.201/169/36, H.No.8694 to 8695 and 8827, Ward No.XVI, Sahi-Shidipura.

24.  Kh.No.442/372, H.No.6052 to 6053 Ward No.XIII Gali Matke Wali, Sadar Bazar North.

25.  Bachon ka Ghar, Kh.No.89/48-49-50, H.No.5028 and 5029, Ward No.XI, Daryaganj North.

26.  Hari Masjid, Kh.No.215, H.No.2185 Ward No.XV, Paharganj.

27.  Mosque Khwaja Khumari, Kh.No.764/218/1, H.No.2039,2039-A,2041, 2041-A, 2042, 2044/2, 2044-2047 and 2038, 2042A, 2043, 2043A, Paharganj.

28.  Sahidipura, Kh.No.114/34, 115/34, 116/34 117/34-35, H.No. 8798/6, 8799,1003, 1304, Ward No.XIV, Shidipura.

29.  Masjid Darjian, H.No.7884 to 7884 C, 4 houses, Bara Hindu Rao, Shidipura.

30.  Ghata Masjid, Kh.No.72, H.No.4414, 4414-A, 4417 and 4418, Ward XI, Daryaganj North.

31.  Imam Bara, Kh.No.40, Property No.5051-3659, 3696, 3702, Ward No.XI, Daryaganj North.

32.  Masjid Sherkhan, Kh. No.184/48, H.No.7975, 7992 to 8013, 8023, 8024 and 8066 to 8070, Ward No.XIV, Bara Hindu Rao, Shidipura.

33.  Masjid Imliwali, Kh.No.280, H.No.656 to 653 and 661, Ward No.XIII, Chowk Teliwara, Sadar Bazar North.

34.  Inside Badi Maker, Kh. No.452/374 and 453/374, H.No.6103, Ward No.XVI, Sadar Bazar North.

35.  Qadam Sharif, Kh. 81 Min.H.No.6695, Ward No.XV, Qadam Sharif.

36.  Kh.No.153/56, Ward No.XV, Daryaganj, North.

37.  Mosque Sang Trashan, Kh.No.98, H.No.3180, House No.3180, Ward No.XV, Paharganj.

38.  Mosque & Dargah No.876/526-527, H.No.2500-2501, Ward No.XV, Paharganj.

39.  Qadam Sharif, Kh.No.156/1, H.No.7228-30, Ward No.XV (Masjid Choonawali).

40.  Graveyard Chamelian Kh.No.201/163/36, Ward No.XIV, Shidipura.

41.  Masjid Bandirawali, Kh.No.165, H.No.11386, Ward No.XV, Qadamsharif.

42.  Shanili Mosque, Tarkiyan Graveyard, Kh.No.203, H.No.1953 to 1954, Ward No.XIII, Sadar Bazar North.

43.  Mosque ruins Shikandaria Masjid Kh.No.221/2-3-5 to 7 (min) Mpl. No.6515, Ward XIV, Jhandewalan.

44.  Kh.No.140, H.No.3450, Jangpura.

45.  Basti Nizamuddin close to Ganda Nala, Kh.No.607, Jangpura.

46.  Masjid Bhim Kurana, Kh.No.126/22, 127/22, Chiragh South, Jhil Khuranja, Shahdara.

47.  Naiwala Kh.No.1203/1140, Naiwala

48.  Masjid Mahal, Chimni Mill Ward No.XIV MPI No.8212 to 8218, Kh.No.13 Min.Bara Hindu Rao.

49.  Dargah Shah Abdul Hussain Kh.No.82/65, H.No.4875-B, Ward No.XI, Daryaganj, South.

50.  Dargah Abdul  Khadus Kh.No.221/2-3-5 to 7 (Min.) Mpl.No.6552-A, Ward No.XIV, close to Idgah Jhandewalan.

51.  Karbala, aliganj, Kh.No.28, Aliganj.

52.  Masjid Lane, Kh.No.187, Jangpura.

53.  Chowkidarwali, Kh.No.185, 187, Sadar Bazar South.

54.  Masjid Jungaliwali, Bara Hindu Rao, Kh.No.214, Sadar Bazar South.

55.  Q.Sharief, South of Quila, Kh.No.20, South of  Quila.

56.  Q.Sharief, Kh.No.73 (Min.), H.No.389A, Q.Sharief.

57.  Q.Sharief Teen Burj, Kh.No.73 (Min) MPL. No.A-389/Ward No.XV, Q.Sharief.

58.  Q.Sharif Masjid Babar Kh.No.146/2, H.No.B-311 & 312 Q.Sharif.

59.  Kh.No.91, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar South.

60.  Kh.No.295/80-81 and 296/82-83, G.B.Road.

61.  Naiwala, Kh.No.1026, Naiwala

62.  Q.Sharief, Kh.No.154, Q.Sharif.

2 COMMENTS

  1. It’s truly disheartening to see this longstanding dispute over the ownership of these sacred properties. These mosques and madrasas have served their religious purpose for generations. Let’s hope for a fair and just resolution that respects the deep historical and religious significance of these sites. ⚖️ #ReligiousHeritage #Respect

  2. Thank you for the detailed article on the Wakf Properties.
    Muslim community is dire straits from British Rule days particularly after the Revolt of 1857 and the the Partition days but now it seems there is no end to the pathetic condition of the Muslims that they can’t own/ utilise even their Wakf properties.
    Mohsin Alam IRS88
    Mobile 9871127928

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here