Delhi High Court – Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Muslim Qubristan & Ors on 16 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 98/2012
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Shivam Takiar,
Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr. Kuljeet
Singh, Advocates for DDA.
versus
MUSLIM QUBRISTAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitika Bhutani, Advocate for
GNCTD.
Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, ASC with
Mr. Mohammad Danish, Ms. Fatima
Parveen & Ms. Muskan Ali,
Advocates for Delhi Waqf Board /
Applicant of CM APPL.61445/2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 16.02.2026
CM APPL. 61445/2025
1. Application under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC‘) and Section 92 of the Waqf Act 1995, has
been filed by the Applicant for impleadment of Delhi Waqf Board through
its Section Officer, as a Respondent to the present Appeal.
2. It is submitted that present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by
the Appellant / DDA against Decree dated 27.09.2010 passed by Learned
ADJ-05, Central District, New Delhi in RCA 07/2010 and Decree dated
14.01.2010 passed by learned SCJ cum RC, Central District, New Delhi.
3. The Applicant Board is a statutory body duly constituted under the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. As per Section 32 of the Act, general
superintendence, management and control of the Waqf vests with the Board
established for the State. The Applicant has control and management of
Waqf properties located in NCT of Delhi.
4. Present Application has been filed by the Applicant through its
Section Officer, who, by virtue of Rule 84(4) of Delhi Waqf Rules, 1997, is
authorised to appoint an Advocate, to sign and verify the Petition, to swear
the Affidavit and file present Petition.
5. It is further stated that the Applicant being a statutory body, is duty
bound to protect the waqf properties falling under it. Recently, during the
pendency of Writ Petition (C) 924/2025 before this Court, in respect of same
properties, the Applicant Board has come to know about the present Appeal.
The subject matter of the Appeal is waqf properties, being Muslim qabristan,
Khasra No.184, admeasuring 3 bighas 02 biswas, 194 Min measuring 9
bighas 7 biswas, 197 measuring 5 bigha 11 biswas and 231 measuring 9
bighas 16 bighas 14 biswas, Idgah 513/150 (2-18) situated in Village Hauz
Rani, New Delhi. The said khasra numbers are duly notified wakf property,
vide Gazette Notification issued by Delhi Administration at page No.354
dated 16.04.1970 regarding khasra numbers 184, 194 Min, 197 and 231 and
Notification at page No.15 dated 10.04.1975 regarding khasra no.513/150. It
is pertinent to mention that the said entries and Gazette have not been
challenged till date and thus has attained finality.
6. It is further submitted that the subject properties are being used by
Muslims of Village, as graveyard and Idgah. The Applicant / Board has a
right of impleadment, in terms of Section 92 of Waqf Act. The Suit was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
filed by the Plaintiffs in representative capacity for the local residents and
the then Mutawalli of the Waqf properties as has been observed by the
learned Trial Court, in issue Nos.1 and 3.
7. Suit properties are entered as qabristan in the Revenue Records and
are therefore, ‘Waqf by user’ also. Applicant being the custodian of the Waqf
and a constituted statutory body, has vital interest in the properties and any
findings or even an observation in present Appeal, would affect the right of
the Applicant.
8. Respondents / Plaintiffs are not appearing in the present Appeal and
no representation on behalf of custodian / Mutawalli, would seriously
prejudice the rights of the Applicant. Plaintiff No.2, who was the Mutawalli
of Waqf property, has already expired. Hence, prayer is made that the
Applicant be permitted to be impleaded as party to present Appeal.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for DDA has vehemently opposed this
Application of impleadment on the ground that Plaintiffs had stated in Plaint
itself that land in question is Gaon Sabha Land and they sought protection
from their dispossession, without due process of law.
10. It is further submitted that custodian / Mutawalli as representative of
Delhi Waqf Board was already a party and represent the interest of Delhi
Waqf Board. Delhi Waqf Board is at liberty to pursue their independent
rights and remedies and cannot seek impleadment in this Regular Second
Appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the Application on the
ground that as on date there is no CEO appointed in Delhi Waqf Board and
there is already Writ Petition pending in respect of properties in question.
Submissions heard and record perused.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
12. The Respondents/Plaintiffs including Muslim Qabristan village Hauz
Rani, Malviya Nagar through Mohd. Zaharia, Mutwalli, had filed a Suit for
Permanent Injunction against the Appellant DDA, to restrain it from
dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit property without due process of
law.
13. It was stated in the Plaint that Khasra No.184 (Measuring 3 Bighas 2
Biswas), 194 Min (Measuring 9 Bighas 7 Biswas), 197 (Measuring 5 Bighas
11 Biswas), 231 (Measuring 9 Bighas 16 Biswas, 513/150 (Measuring 2
Bighas 18 Biswas) situated in village Hauz Rani, New Delhi was public
graveyards i.e. Qabristan and Idgah for the last more than 50 years. Part of
the land was a Qabristan, while the part of it was being used as Idgah. The
land was not acquired by Custodian or Union of India under Re-settlement
of Displaced Persons Land Acquisition Act, 1948.
14. When Delhi Land Reforms Act came into force in July, 1954, the
Khasra numbers were shown vested in Gaon Sabha Village Hauz Rani under
the provisions of Section 7, DLR Act. The Khasra numbers were duly
declared Wakf properties. Plaintiff No.2 was the Mutwalli appointed for the
Wakf property vide Gazette Notification issued by Delhi Administration
dated 16.04.1970 and 10.04.1975. Since time immemorial the land was
being used by Mohammadons as burial ground and Idgah and hundred of
graves are situated there.
15. It was asserted that DDA wants to remove the graveyards/Idgarh from
the said land and wants to make it into a garden. It was claimed that DDA or
Delhi Administration or Union of India never acquired the land and no
compensation ever was paid to Plaintiff No.1 and 2 regarding the acquisition
of land. A prayer was, therefore, made that the Defendants be restraint from
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
taking Possession of the land or from removing any grave from the Suit land
or converting it into a garden.
16. The Defendant No.1 and 2 had claimed that the property in question
was acquired through Award No.1027 and Award No.1595 and it was
recorded as Gher Mumkin Khal as per Khasra Girdawari and Rosli as per
Khasra No.513/150(2-18), in the year 1959/60. Therefore, it was claimed
that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to protection of their Possession.
17. The Suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondents vide
Judgment dated 14.01.2010 by observing that it was a Representative Suit
under Order 1 Rule 8 filed by the Plaintiffs, who were the inhabitants of the
area and were interested in protection of Qabristan and DDA was restrained
from taking possession of the land or removing the graves, except in due
process of law.
18. RCA No.7/2010 was filed before the learned ADJ, who vide his
Judgment dated 27.09.2010 observed that there was no irregularity or
infirmity in the impugned Judgment, but modified the Judgment by
simultaneously restraining the Respondent No.1 to 23/Plaintiffs from raising
any kind of illegal/unlawful structure on the Suit property without obtaining
Sanction from the Competent Authority.
19. DDA aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, has filed the present
Regular Second Appeal challenging the Order of the Civil Judge and the
learned ADJ.
20. It is in this backdrop that the Application has been filed by the
Applicant Mohd. Rehman Khan, Section Officer of Delhi Waqf Board to be
impleaded as a party on the grounds that the Applicant being a Statutory
Body, is duty bound to protect the Waqf properties falling under it. Section
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
92 Waqf Act provides that the Board is to be a party to a Suit or proceeding
in respect of any Waqf or any Waqf property. Therefore, since the Suit
property is a Waqf property and there is no Representation on behalf of
Custodian Mutwalli, the Applicant be allowed to be impleaded as a party to
the present Second Regular Appeal.
21. It is pertinent to observe that the Suit in Representative capacity, was
filed by the inhabitants claiming their long possession and user of land as
quabristan and sought protection from dispossession without due process of
law by the DDA.
22. It was not a Suit where the nature of the Waqf property was under
question or was a subject matter of determination. Mutwalli may have been
a party, but they all were there only in the capacity of inhabitants of the Suit
land.
23. The Waqf Board in order to get the determination of the property to
be belonging to Waqf, has a right to prefer a Petition before the Tribunal
constituted under Section 83 Waqf Act and seek protection of the land by
proving it to be a Waqf property. The nature of the property as belonging to
Waqf, was not in question in the Suit in question. It was only a long
possession of the inhabitants of the area, which was sought to be protected
by way of Injunction. The Suit did not entail any findings about the nature of
the Suit property.
24. The Applicant in case claims that the property belongs to Waqf, is a
liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal. By pleading the
Applicants, the scope of the Suit would change completely and would be
converted to one of title of the property being a Waqf property; rather than
being a simplicitor Suit for Permanent Injunction for protection from
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48
dispossession except by due process of law.
25. Moreover, Section 85 of Waqf Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court
in respect of any dispute in question or matter relating to Waqf property or
other matter, which is required by or under this Act to be determined by the
Tribunal.
26. The Applicant are neither necessary nor property party in this Regular
Second Appeal and the Application is hereby, dismissed. The Applicants,
however, are at liberty to pursue their remedies before the appropriate
Forum.
27. The Application is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.
RSA 98/2012
28. List for arguments on 08.10.2026.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
FEBRUARY 16, 2026/R/VA
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/03/2026 at 20:33:48