WAQF MAZAR GARIB SHAH MIYAN Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH MAURYA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Waqf Mazar Garib Shah Miyan
Rajendra Singh Maurya And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The writ petition by the appellant has been dismissed and the writ petition of the private respondent has been allowed. It appears that the private respondent made a complaint to the effect that though he has been granted licence by the Zila Panchayat to run a Haat market, appellant, without a licence, is illegally running a Haat market. On a writ petition filed by the private respondent, this Court directed the matter to be enquired. On enquiry, it transpired that the appellant is running a Haat market and, to run the same, he has not obtained any licence. On such finding, an order was passed by the District Magistrate to stop the Haat market of the appellant. In the meantime, appellant had also approached this Court contending that he is entitled to run Haat market and he is not being permitted to do so. This Court directed the SDM to look into the said grievance of the appellant. Having had looked into the said grievance, the SDM held out that the appellant can hold Haat market on 5 days of the week, excepting two days when the private respondent holds Haat market. These two decisions came to be challenged in two separate writ petitions. By the judgment and order under Appeals, the Court has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant and has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent holding that, until such time the appellant secures a licence from the Zila Panchayat, appellant is not entitled to hold Haat market.
(2.) Before we proceed with the matter further, it is obligatory on our part to give a little glimpse about the concept of Haat market. Haat markets are held in an open land, where merchants gather for the purpose of transacting their wares. Such market is organized by somebody. This somebody is required to take permission of the Zila Panchayat to organize such Haat market. The vendors, in order to get access to the Haat market, pays a fee to the organizer of the Haat market. It is not necessary for a vendor to come to the Haat market on every time the Haat market is held. Apropos that, it was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that under Section 32 (4) of the Wakf Act, 1995, it is permissible for the Wakf Board to authorize utilization of a wakf property for market and that permission has been granted to the appellant. It was contended that, in such circumstances, there was no necessity of obtaining any licence to run Haat market on the property of the appellant from the Zila Panchayat. Section 32(4) of the Wakf Act is as follows:
"Where the Board is satisfied that any wakf land, which is a wakf property, offers a feasible potential for development as a shopping center, market, housing flats and the like, it may serve upon the mutawalli of the concerned wakf a notice requiring him within such time, but not les than sixty days, as may be specified in the notice, to convey its decision whether he is willing to execute the development works specified in the notice.
(3.) Therefore, Section 32(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 contemplates establishment of a market on any wakf land, which is a wakf property. Similarly, such land may be utilized for shopping centers, housing flats and the like. Can it be said that the Wakf Act, 1995 authorises utilization of a wakf land for construction of shopping centers or housing flats without the necessary sanction of the local municipality or the panchayat The answer will be 'No'. The word 'market' used in Section 32(4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 in conjunction with "shopping centre", "housing flats" and "the like" means such markets, which are permanent in nature. This market has got no resemblance with Haat market. In any event, even if the market referred to includes Haat market, the fact remains that Section 32(4) only authorises utilization of the land for establishment of a market and not to run the market without permission, when permission is a requirement of law. There is no dispute that there is a requirement of permission under the State law. It was contended that since the Central law authorised establishment, no permission to run was necessary. The contention itself is the answer to the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.