{"id":134364,"date":"2011-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-05T18:25:14","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T12:55:14","slug":"jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR       \n\n                WRIT PETITION NO 2625 OF 2005\n\n\n             Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai  Lane  Raipur  & Others\n\n                                                        ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n\n             State of Chhattisgarh & Others\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!  Shri  Ravish  Chandra  Agrawal Senior Advocate  with  Ms Fouzia Mirza Ms Farah Minhaz  & Shri R K Pali Advocates  for  the\n\n\n^  Shri  Kishore  Bhaduri Additional  Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi Deputy Government Advocate for the State respon\n\n\n CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J \n\n\n Dated: 09\/05\/2011\n\n\n: Judgement \n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          (Delivered on this 09th day of May, 2011)<\/p>\n
   (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
\n                           India)<\/p>\n
1.   By this petition, the petitioners, firstly; seek a<\/p>\n
     direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the lease,<\/p>\n
     if any, granted to the respondent No.5 and\/or to revoke the<\/p>\n
     same.  Secondly; a direction be issued to the respondents<\/p>\n
     No.1 to 3 to correct the revenue record with respect to<\/p>\n
     Khasra No.736 of Civil Station (Civil Lines), Raipur, which<\/p>\n
     are recorded as plot No.8\/1 to 8\/4 block No.16 total area<\/p>\n
     34883 sq.ft.  Thirdly; quashing the proceedings pending<\/p>\n
     before the Nazul Officer, Raipur, being without jurisdiction<\/p>\n
     and a last prayer was added by amendment, ordered on 6-4-\n<\/p>\n
     2010, that the order dated 31-7-2004 passed by the Nazul<\/p>\n
     Officer in Revenue Case No.80\/B-12\/2003-04, as also against<\/p>\n
     the order dated                     15-9-2004 passed by the<\/p>\n
     Nazul Officer, Raipur in Revenue Case No.80\/B-121\/03-04,<\/p>\n
     order dated 14-6-2005 passed by the Additional Collector,<\/p>\n
     Raipur in Revenue Case No.121\/2-B\/2004-05.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the
\npetitioners, for proper adjudication of the case, are that
\nthe first petitioner – Jama Masjid is a public trust
\nregistered with the Registrar of Public Trust, Raipur. The
\ntrust has immovable properties including the
\npetition-schedule land known as Risali Naka, Eedgah-Kabristan
\nadmeasuring 38082 sq.ft.  After the Indian Wakf Act came into
\nforce, the said property was registered as a wakf property
\nwith the Wakf Board, Bhopal.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The respondent No.5 – M\/s Raipur Transport Company Pvt.
\nLtd., was granted a lease of 14880 sq.ft. out of the said
\nland, which was revoked  on the application of Munshi
\nMehruddin and renewal was refused in 1965.  The khasra
\nNo.736\/89 of Civil Lines, Raipur, and shown as Risali Naka,
\nEedgah-Kabristan, was divided into block No.16, plot No.8\/1
\narea of 18353 sqft., plot No.8\/2 area of 70 sq.ft., plot
\nNo.8\/3 area of 14880 sq.ft. and plot No.8\/4 area of 810
\nsq.ft. Total area 34113 sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n
4.   There is pre-existing graveyard and many graves are
\nstill there.  Despite grant of lease, the respondent No.5 was
\nnever in physical possession of the petition-schedule land.
\nOn the application of Munshi Mehruddin made in the year 1965,
\non spot inspection, a discrepancy was found in allotment of
\nlease of plot No.8\/3 of block No.16 granted to the respondent
\nNo.5.  It was recommended to treat the whole area of khasra
\nNo.736\/89 as Kabristan.  It is a wakf property under the
\nmanagement and control of Jama Masjid, Raipur.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The respondent authorities have handed over the
\npossession of the said land to the respondent No.5.  The
\nNazul Officer by order dated 31-7-2004 (Annexure – P\/9)
\ndirected the petitioners to remove the encroachment from
\nkhasra No.736, block No.16, plot No.8\/3 area of 14880 sq.ft.
\nThereafter, on 15-9-2004, the Nazul Officer after having
\nheard both the parties observed that Fourth Civil Judge,
\nCivil Court, Raipur, has passed an interim injunction holding
\nthat the respondent No.5 was in possession and ownership of
\nthe petition-schedule land, thus it was held that the
\nrespondent No.5 was the owner of the petition-schedule land.
\nIt was further held that the land in dispute was not the
\nproperty of Sunni Muslim.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Since the petitioners have not complied with the order
\nof Civil Court, the order of encroachment was passed
\naccordingly for              non-compliance of the order
\npassed by the Civil Court.  Order of removal of encroachment
\nwas passed on 15-9-2004                  (Annexure – P\/11)
\nthat is under challenge in this petition.  Thereafter, the
\nAdditional Collector, Raipur, in appeal, by impugned order
\ndated 14-6-2005 (Annexure – P\/12) dismissed the appeal filed
\nby Jama Masjid finding the order passed by the Nazul Officer
\nas just & proper.  Thus, this petition.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms.
\nFouzia Mirza, Ms. Farah Minhaz & Shri R.K. Pali, learned
\nAdvocates for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned
\norders passed by the authorities are without jurisdiction.
\nThe respondent No.3 could not have passed the order of
\nremoval of encroachment in a proceeding under Section 129 of
\nthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the
\nCode, 1959”).  Shri Agrawal would further submit that the
\nrespondent No.5 was never in possession of the land, thus the
\nproceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 could not
\nhave been initiated. The action of the respondent authorities
\nis politically motivated and the impugned order was passed on
\nthe basis of instructions received from the office of the
\nChief Minister as well as the Home Minister.  The respondent
\nauthorities failed to consider the report of Annexure – P\/5
\nsubmitted by the Extra Assistant Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
8.   On the other hand, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned
\nAdditional Advocate General appearing with Shri Ajay Dwivedi,
\nlearned Deputy Government Advocate for the State\/respondents
\nNo.1 to 4, would submit that the allegation that the Nazul
\nOfficer has acted on undue pressure of the office of the
\nChief Minister as well as the Home Minister is without any
\nbasis.  The application was moved before the Chief Minister
\nin ‘Jandarshan programme’ wherein it was simply referred to
\nthe Collector without any direction and instruction.  The
\nHome Minister has also not interfered with the quasi judicial
\nprocess of Nazul Officer.  Simply, the application made to
\nthe Home Minister was sent to the Collector without any
\nobservation and direction and, as such, the allegation of
\ninterference and undue pressure of the office of Chief
\nMinister as well as Home Minister is baseless and
\nunsubstantiated.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Shri Bhaduri would further submit that the order of the
\nNazul Officer is in consonance with the order passed by the
\ncompetent Civil Court granting interim injunction in favour
\nof the respondent No.5.  The petitioners had also filed a
\ncivil suit being No.3-A of 69 (Abdul Habib & Others v. The
\nState of Madhya Pradesh & Others) for declaration and
\npermanent injunction, which was dismissed for want of
\nprosecution.  Thereafter, an application for restoration was
\nalso dismissed.  The petitioners have not taken the said
\ndecision to the superior Courts, but accepted the decision
\nand, as such, the petitioners cannot question the order
\npassed by the Nazul Officer at this stage.  The same is just
\n& proper.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing with
\nShri Sourabh Dangi, Shri Malay Shrivastava & Shri Sameer
\nShrivastava, learned Advocates for the respondent No.5, would
\nsubmit that the petitioners filed a civil suit for
\ndeclaration of the title on the land, bearing khasra No.736.
\nBy order dated 16-11-1976, the application for amendment was
\ndismissed by the fourth Civil Judge.  Thereagainst, a
\nRevision, being civil revision No.1205 of 1976 (Abdul Habib &
\nOthers v. Shri Mohanlal Vyas & Another), was preferred by the
\nfirst petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
\nwhich was dismissed by order dated 24-11-1976.  Thereafter,
\nthe civil suit filed by the petitioners was also dismissed
\nfor want of prosecution on 24-2-1982 and an application for
\nrestoration of the same was also dismissed.  Thereafter, no
\naction was taken by the petitioners and, as such, the same
\nbecame final.  Shri Shrivastava would further submit that the
\nrespondent No.5 has also filed a civil suit for declaration
\nbeing civil suit No.38-A\/1982 (M\/s Raipur Transport Company
\nPvt. Ltd. v. Abdul Habib & Others) for declaration and
\nperpetual injunction, wherein an interim injunction was
\ngranted on 9-7-1982 in favour of the respondent No.5.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Shri Shrivastava would next submit that the petitioners,
\nafter an order of interim injunction passed in favour of the
\nrespondent No.5, made illegal encroachment on the petition-
\nschedule land.  Accordingly, an application was made before
\nthe Nazul Officer and the Nazul Officer by order dated 15-9-
\n2004 having considered the order passed by the Civil Court
\nand subsequent encroachment by the petitioners directed
\nremoval of the encroachments, which was in accordance with
\nlaw.  The petitioners have defied the order passed by the
\nCivil Court without taking any permission of the Civil Court
\nor without seeking modification or vacation of the interim
\ninjunction by the Civil Court when they were party defendants
\nto the civil suit, by encroaching the suit land.  Thus, there
\nis no merit in this case and this petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\nIn rejoinder, Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel would
\nsubmit that the respondent No.5 was never in physical
\npossession of the petition-schedule land, therefore, no
\nproceedings can be initiated under Section 250 of the Code,
\n1959.   The petitioners have not been afforded any
\nopportunity of hearing while passing the order dated 1-9-2004
\n(Annexure – P\/10).\n<\/p>\n
13.  I have heard rival contentions advanced by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and
\nthe documents appended thereto.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The petitioners have clubbed reliefs arising from
\nseparate and different causes of action in the petition.
\nHowever, at the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioners gave up other reliefs except the relief
\nNo.7.6 to quash the orders dated              31-7-2004 & 15-
\n9-2004 passed by the Nazul Officer and the order dated 14-6-
\n2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, confirming
\nthe order dated 15-9-2004 passed by the Nazaul Officer, as is
\nevident from the written submissions submitted by the
\npetitioners.  Even otherwise, different cause of action
\ncannot be clubbed together under the provisions of law.
\n(See: Indrajit Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
15.  The petitioners filed the civil suit No.3-A of 69
\n(Annexure – R\/5 – 28) for declaration and permanent
\ninjunction wherein Shri Mohanlal Vyas, Director, Raipur
\nTransport Company (respondent No.5 herein) was defendant
\nNo.3.  Collector, Raipur, Nazul Officer, Raipur were also the
\ndefendants No.2 & 4, respectively.  In the said civil suit,
\nthe petitioners prayed for following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
               “(i) It  be declared that  the
\n                    suit     property     the
\n                    Kabarstan and Idgah shown
\n                    in   the  plaint  map  by
\n                    letters A B C D are  wakf
\n                    property     and      the
\n                    Defendant  Govt.   was\/is
\n                    not entitled to lease out
\n                    such wakf property.<\/p>\n
               (ii) The     defendants     be\n                    restrained  by  permanent\n                    injunction from  entering\n                    or   in  any  way  taking\n                    possession  of  the  suit\n                    property,   by  executing\n                    the  above said order  in\n                    Misc.Cr.C.No.97\/64,    or\n                    otherwise.\n\n               (iii)      That the defendants\n                    by order to pay the costs\n                    of   this  suit  to   the\n                    plaintiffs, and\"\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
16.  Thereafter, an application for amendment in the civil<\/p>\n
suit was filed on the basis of notification published in the<\/p>\n
     gazette dated                         1-11-1974 (Annexure –<\/p>\n
     R\/5-18) wherein the khasra No.736 measuring 0.89 acres<\/p>\n
     situated in Baijnathpara Ward, Raipur, was notified as ‘wakf<\/p>\n
     property’.  The application for the said amendment was<\/p>\n
     dismissed on 16-11-1976.  Thereagainst, a civil revision was<\/p>\n
     preferred before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at<\/p>\n
     Jabalpur, being civil revision No.1205 of 1976, (Annexure –<\/p>\n
     R\/5-19). The said civil revision was dismissed on 4-11-1976<\/p>\n
     holding as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “2.  The contention raised  on
\n                    behalf  of the applicants
\n                    is  that  the Wakf  Board
\n                    has now declared the suit
\n                    land as the Wakf Property
\n                    with  effect  from  15-6-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    1974  and  this has  been
\n                    duly  published  in  M.P.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Rajpatra dated 1-11-1974.
\n                    Thereafter, the amendment
\n                    ought to be allowed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3.   In    my   opinion,   the\n                    decision   of  the   Wakf\n                    Board  cannot effect  the\n                    defendant  No.1's  rights\n                    and  the  Wakf Board  can\n                    only    acquire    rights\n                    subject  to the  decision\n                    of the suit.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
17.  Subsequently, the civil suit No.3-A\/69 was dismissed on<\/p>\n
     24-2-1982 (Annexure – R\/5-5) for want of prosecution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thereagainst, the petitioners preferred an application for<\/p>\n
     restoration of civil suit being M.J.C. No.7\/2001 (Abdul Habib<\/p>\n
     & Others v. State of M.P. & Others).  The said application<\/p>\n
     was dismissed on 13-10-2003 (Annexure – R\/5-6) by the Civil<\/p>\n
     Court.  Admittedly, no appeal\/revision was preferred by the<\/p>\n
     petitioners against the order dated 13-10-2003 passed by the<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge Class – II, Raipur.  Thus, all the claims of the<\/p>\n
     petitioners including on the basis of notification declaring<\/p>\n
     a portion of the land as wakf property came to an end, as no<\/p>\n
     challenge, thereafter, was made to the superior Courts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
18.  Thereafter, the respondent No.5, herein, filed a civil
\nsuit No.38-A\/82 (Annexure – R\/5-29) before the Court of Civil
\nJudge Class-II, Raipur against the petitioners seeking
\ndeclaration and perpetual injunction on the nazul land
\ncomprised in plot No.8\/3, block No.16 area 14880 sq.ft. or
\nthereabout a portion of khasra No.736 situated in civil
\nstation ward near Salem Girls English School, Raipur city,
\nRaipur.  In the said civil suit, the respondent No.5 prayed
\nfor following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
               “(a) A  declaration  that  the
\n                    Plaintiff  is  the  sole,
\n                    absolute   and  exclusive
\n                    owner    of   the    suit
\n                    property in its own right
\n                    as  the  permanent lessee
\n                    of  the  State of  Madhya
\n                    Pradesh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n               (b)  A  declaration  that  the\n                    plaintiff is entitled  to\n                    retain possession of  the\n                    suit  property,  both  on\n                    the    basis    of    its\n                    subsisting title as  well\n                    as  in terms of the final\n                    orders    dated   25-8-64\n                    passed   by   the    sub-\n                    Divisional     Magistrate\n                    under   Section   145(4),\n                    Cr.P.C. in Misc. Criminal\n                    Case No.97 of 1964.\n\n               (c)  A  declaration  that  the\n                    Defendants never had  nor\n                    have how any right, title\n                    or  interest of any  kind\n                    in  the suit property  or\n                    in any portion thereof.\n\n               (d)  A   perpetual  injunction\n                    restraining           the\n                    Defendants,         their\n                    members, servants, agents\n                    or     employees,    from\n                    interfering    with    or\n                    disturbing the possession\n                    of the plaintiff over the\n                    suit property.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
19.  The Civil Judge, by order dated 9-7-1982 (Annexure – R\/5-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     7), on perusal of the reports, passed the following order<\/p>\n
     holding, prima facie, the respondent No.5 as owner and in<\/p>\n
     possession of the              suit land to maintain status<\/p>\n
     quo :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “vr%   vkosnu  vk-   vk-1
\n               fopkj  ckn Lohdkj djds  vkxkeh
\n               vkns’k   rd   vUrfje   vLFkk;h
\n               fu”ks\/kkKk oknh ds i{k esa ,oa
\n               izfroknhx.k ds fo:) tkjh  djds
\n               izpfyr   dh   tkrh    gS    fd
\n               izfroknhx.k   oknxzLr    Hkwfe
\n               [kljk   ua- 737 CykWd  ua-  16
\n               IykV  ua-  8@3 jdck 14880  oxZ
\n               QhV  fLFkr flfoy LVs’ku  okMZ]
\n               jk;iqj  dh  ;FkkfLFkfr   cuk;s
\n               j[ksaAA  bl oknxzLr  Hkwfe  ij
\n               oknh  ds  dCts ,oa LokfeRo  ij
\n               fdlh  izdkj ls gLr{ksi ;k cykr
\n               dCtk ugha djsaxs vkSj u gha os
\n               vius            izfrfuf\/k;ksa]
\n               deZpkfj;ksa ;k vU; yksxksa  ls
\n               gLr{ksi  ;k cykr] dCtk oknxzLr
\n               Hkwfe ij djok;saxsAA”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.  Thereafter, it appears that the said civil suit filed by<\/p>\n
     the respondent No.5 is still pending consideration.  No steps<\/p>\n
     have been taken by the petitioners to get either the same<\/p>\n
     vacated or modified by the Civil Court.  The competent Civil<\/p>\n
     Court is in seisin of the matter in dispute.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.  According to the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent No.5, encroachment was made by the petitioners on
\nthe teeth of the order passed by the Civil Court on the
\npetition-schedule land wherein the order of the civil Court
\nto maintain status quo in respect of the possession was
\npassed.  Thus, the respondent No.5 was forced to make an
\napplication before the Collector on 7-1-2004 (Annexure – R\/5-\n<\/p>\n
25) seeking compliance of the order passed by the Civil Judge
\nin the matter.  A copy of the said application was marked to
\nthe Home Minister, State of Chhattisgarh and other officers.\n<\/p>\n
22.  The Nazul Officer issued notice to the petitioners vide
\nAnnexure – R\/5-26 (i) to the effect that they have made
\nencroachment in the petition-schedule land and, as such, why
\nthe same may not be removed.  A public notice vide Annexure –
\nR\/5-26 (ii) was also issued that on 25-8-2004 the illegal
\nencroachments on the petition-schedule land shall be removed.
\nOn 25-8-2004 the proceeding was initiated wherein all the
\nconcerned parties were present.  On 31-7-2004 (Annexure –
\nP\/9), the Nazul Officer passed the order to inform the
\npetitioners to remove the encroachment within a period of 15
\ndays, failing which it was proposed to take proper action for
\nremoval.\n<\/p>\n
23.  Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urge that
\nthe order dated 31-7-2004 was passed at the instance of the
\nChief Minister as well as Home Minister.  I have perused the
\nletter addressed to the Chief Minister wherein the case was
\nreferred to the Collector without any observation or
\ndirection to consider the case in a particular manner.  Thus,
\nit cannot be held that there was any undue influence or
\npressure on the Nazul Officer before passing the order.
\nThough, direction\/letter of the Home Minister was not
\nproduced, however, on perusal of the observation made by the
\nNazul Officer, it appears that the Home Minister has directed
\nto take steps on the application of the respondent No.5 in
\naccordance with law.  Thus, it cannot be held that the order
\ndated 30-7-2004 is vitiated, on the ground that there was a
\nsimple reference to the letters from the office of the Chief
\nMinister and Home Minister, but it was not found that any
\norder was passed on the basis of above-stated letters.  On
\nthat date, it was decided to inform the petitioners to remove
\nthe encroachment within 15 days.\n<\/p>\n
24.  It appears that no steps have been taken by the
\npetitioners for removal, thus the final order was passed on
\n15-9-2004.  In the order dated 15-9-2004 there is a clear
\nmention that as per the order passed by the Civil Judge the
\npetition-schedule land was in ownership and possession of the
\nrespondent No.5.  It was further observed that after the
\norder was passed by the competent civil Court, the
\npetitioners had encroached upon the land in dispute.  Thus,
\nthe order of removal of the encroachment was passed on  15-9-
\n2004.  Thereagainst, the appeal before the Additional
\nCollector was also dismissed affirming the order passed by
\nthe Nazul Officer, on 14-6-2005.\n<\/p>\n
25.  The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioners that the Nazul Officer could not have
\npassed the order under Section 129 of the Code, 1959, is
\nmisplaced, as there was no application for demarcation,
\nwhereupon, impugned orders were passed.\n<\/p>\n
26.  On perusal of the order dated 31-7-2004, it does not
\nreflect that the order was passed on any other application,
\nwhich might have been moved for demarcation.  The order was
\npassed on the basis of above-stated application, which was
\nclearly made for removal of the encroachment from the
\npetition-schedule land.  Reference of the petitioners to the
\norder dated 16-1-2004 wherein there is a discussion about the
\ndemarcation of the petition-schedule land is not conclusive
\nto the effect that the order was passed in the application,
\nwhich was made for demarcation.  Thus, the contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners fails on facts.\n<\/p>\n
27.  The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioners that the respondent No.5 was never in physical
\npossession of the petition-schedule land and, as such, no
\nproceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 could be
\ninitiated cannot be decided in this petition, as the dispute
\nwith regard to ownership and possession is pending
\nconsideration in the Court of Civil Judge in civil suit
\nNo.38-A\/82 filed by the respondent No.5 and the interim order
\ndated 9-7-1982 passed by the Civil Judge is still operative
\nnot being modified or vacated subsequently. The report of
\nExtra Assistant Commission (Annexure – P\/5) can also not be
\nexamined at this stage, as the dispute, as aforestated, in
\nrespect of the petition-schedule land, is pending
\nconsideration before the Civil Court.  The notification in
\nrespect of the wakf property was sought to be incorporated in
\nthe civil suit No.3-A\/69 by application for amendment, which
\nwas rejected and the civil revision preferred, thereagainst,
\nwas also rejected by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh holding
\nthat all the disputes would be subject to final decision of
\nthe civil suit.  Thereafter, the civil suit was dismissed for
\nwant of prosecution and even the restoration application was
\nalso dismissed, which had attained finality for want of
\nchallenge in the superior Courts.  Thus, there is no merit in
\nthis case.\n<\/p>\n
28.  The order passed by the Nazul Officer was in consonance
\nof the order of status quo passed by the Civil Judge.  Thus,
\nthe same cannot be held as vitiated, if the petitioners have
\nany grievance, the petitioners could have approached the
\ncivil Court for modification\/vacation of the interim order
\ndated 9-7-1982 passed by the competent Civil Court, which is
\nstill in existence, in favour of the respondent No.5.\n<\/p>\n
29.  This Court on 24-6-2005 having considered the case of
\nthe petitioners, stayed the dispossession\/demolition and
\nfurther directed to maintain status quo till the next date of
\nhearing.  Subsequently, after hearing both the parties on 8-9-
\n2006, the interim order dated 24-6-2005 was modified as under
\n:\n<\/p>\n
                    “Shri    Kanak    Tiwari,
\n               learned Sr. Advocate appearing
\n               for  applicant-respondent No.5
\n               would submit that by virtue of
\n               interim  order  made  by   the
\n               civil  Court, from  1982  till
\n               date he has been in possession
\n               and   enjoyment  of  the  suit
\n               schedule property and  without
\n               disclosing  the  fact  to  the
\n               Court,  the  other  side   has
\n               secured  the interim order  at
\n               the  hands  of this  Court  on
\n               24.06.2005 and in view of this
\n               undeniable  fact, the  interim
\n               order is liable to be vacated.\n<\/p>\n
               On  the  other  hand,  learned
\n               counsel for the other side was
\n               also heard.\n<\/p>\n
                    Essentially   what   this
\n               Court  directed  vide  interim
\n               order   dated  24.06.2005   is
\n               directing   the   parties   to
\n               maintain   status   quo   that
\n               obtained as on that date.   It
\n               is  clarified that if the  5th
\n               respondent-applicant  has  had
\n               the  benefit  of  the  interim
\n               order  in  his  favour  as  on
\n               24.06.2005, status  quo  order
\n               passed by this court would not
\n               alter    the    effect     and
\n               consequence  of  such  interim
\n               order. With these observations
\n               this  M.(W)P. No.2965 of  2006
\n               is             disposed of.”\n<\/p>\n
30.  Thus,  the interim order passed by the civil Court<\/p>\n
     continues, as the same was not modified by this Court while<\/p>\n
     directing to maintain status quo as on 24-6-2005.\n<\/p>\n
31.  However, having regard to the facts situation of the
\ncase that the matter is pending consideration before the
\nCivil Court for about three decades, the Civil Court is
\ndirected to consider and decide the same, in accordance with
\nlaw and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably
\nwithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
32.  It is well settled proposition of law that the writ<\/p>\n
     Court is not the proper forum for adjudication of the<\/p>\n
     property disputes or disputes relating to tile.  (See :\n<\/p>\n
     Mohammed Hanif v. The State of Assam2, M\/s. Hindustan Steel <\/p>\n
     Limited, Rourkela v. Smt., Kalyani Banerjee and Others3 and<\/p>\n
     Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil4).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
33.  Resultantly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit,<\/p>\n
     is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
34.  There shall be no order asto costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                             J u d g e<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO 2625 OF 2005 Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane Raipur & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others …Respondents ! Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal Senior Advocate with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3550,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011"},"wordCount":3550,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011","name":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:55:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jama-masjid-sunni-halwai-lane-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-others-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jama Masjid Sunni Halwai Lane … vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 9 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}