Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

WAKF MASZID CHANDNI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Wakf Maszid Chandni And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 3668 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1793 (23 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3668 of 2006

Waqf Maszid Chandni & Ors.

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 29.12.2005 (Annex.10) passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the compromise dated 12.02.2004 (Annex.4), for a direction that the property in dispute belongs to Waqf Masjid Chandni in village Munimpur, Post Sharif Nagar, District Moradabad and to restrain the respondents from harassing the petitioners or other persons belonging to Muslim community to offer Namaz in the said mosque.

Earlier, petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed vide order dated 08.04.2005  with a direction that as the matter required investigation as well as maintaining the law and order, it would be desirable that the District Magistrate might have a preliminary investigation in respect of the disputed question of fact regarding the existence of mosque in nature and status and the right of other person to offer Namaz therein. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the order impugned has been passed.

We have heard Shri R.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

It has been submitted by Shri Rai that the petition raises disputed question of fact and so far as the legal rights are concerned, neither the order passed by this Court earlier nor the order of the District Magistrate in pursuance of the order passed by this Court earlier, create any legal right in favour of either of the parties.  As the District Magistrate has recorded a finding against the present petitioners, it is not desirable for this Court to set in appeal against the said finding. The parties should be left with the option to approach the Civil Court or any other forum for declaration of their rights.

In view of the fact that the petition raises disputed questions of fact, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief.

23.01.2006

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.