MOHD ASHIKIAN QURESHI Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to restrain all persons from parking their cars in front of Madini Masjid, near Gate No. 7, Alaknanda Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi, and further, take steps to remove the boundary wall allegedly raised in an illegal manner and without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner who is a resident of Kalkaji, is a Namazi and has been offering Namaz at Madini Masjid for the past several years, but due to cars being illegally parked near the Masjid, his ingress and egress and that of thousands of other Namazis into the Masjid is being obstructed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that cars are illegally being parked in the open courtyard in front of the Masjid, which is actually not meant for car parking. He also states that there is an unauthorised wall that has been constructed near the Masjid, which ought to be removed as thousands of Namazis from the adjoining localities who visit the mosque in question are facing difficulty in offering their prayers due to lack of space. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) An affidavit in opposition to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 1/DDA, wherein it is stated that the reliefs prayed for in present writ petition are the subject matter of a civil suit that has been instituted by the Local Managing Committee of Madani Masjid and Dargah and the same is pending adjudication in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Saket. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/DDA states that the aforesaid suit came to be instituted by the Managing Committee of the Masjid on 04.10.2010, after an order dated 19.01.2009 was passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 535-43/2006 entitled Aravali Resident Welfare Association and Ors. vs. DDA and Ors.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench reveals that in the said case, the Court was considering the submissions made by the appellants/RWA therein to the effect that the subject Masjid itself was an unauthorised construction and an encroachment on public land. However, after hearing the parties, the Division Bench had expressed an opinion that there were a number of factual disputes raised for consideration, which could not be determined in writ proceedings as evidence was required to be led before coming to any conclusion. The said disputed questions of facts included whether the mosque in question had existed at the site on a particular date and as to what was the stage at which it had come up. The other disputed questions of facts mentioned in the aforesaid decision included the status of an entity by the name of Muslim Janta Anjuman and its capacity to have proposed any settlement between the parties before the Division Bench. In the concluding para of the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench had observed as below:-