The Gujarat High Court in the case Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation observed and has directed the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for deciding a representation made by the Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee against its agenda by changing the name of a residential locality of the Waqf from naming “Afzal Khan no Tekro” to “Shivaji no Tekro”.
However, the present case is the case of the petitioner that the Resolution was passed by considering the representations of persons who were admittedly been the ‘encroachers’ on their property and that the said Resolution was passed without the issuance of any notice, no information was given not any opportunity was given of hearing to the Waqf, nor consulting the Gujarat State Waqf Board, which being the statutory authority in this regard.
Furthermore, it was stated by the petitioner that as soon as it was made aware of the Resolution, on October 15, it made a representation to the Corporation, wherein requesting them for not approving the Resolution, while giving that the property was under the ownership of the Waqf.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the Committee did not even acknowledge and has not even referred to the area by its name – “Afzal Khan no Tekro” – and that it ostensibly being referred to the area through names of its adjacent locations and the same was nothing but a political event made to coincide with the upcoming elections and was violative of the fundamental, religious and the legal rights of the Waqf.
It had specifically been challenged by the petitioner that the Agenda and Resolution as grossly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the settled principles and propositions of law, since any of the representation been made by encroachers could not have been considered by the Committee as per the Town Planning Scheme. Further, the petitioner argued that not giving an opportunity to the Waqf was against the principles of natural justice
The Single bench comprising of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, after considering the arguments raised by the petitioner, observed and has directed the Corporation to decide the October 15 representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one week.
