JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA Vs. MOHD HAROON CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Petition, filed by Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), has been pending since 20.4.2001. The allegation is that Mohd. Haroon Chaudhary, resident of B-46, Ghaffar Manzil-1, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110 025 should be punished for committing contempt of the Orders passed by this Court on 5.9.2000 in CW 5046/2000. It is remarkable that the Contempt Petition states that the said Order has been annexed as Annexure-P1, whereas the Order that has been filed as Annexure P-1 is dated 12.12.2000 passed by Vijender Jain, J. Be that as it may, on 5.9.2000, Manmohan Sarin, J. had ordered - ?In the meanwhile status quo as to possession be maintained?.

(2.) On 8.1.2004 JMI had filed photographs of the area which when compared to the photographs filed by them on 17.5.2007, show that construction has indeed been carried out. Mr. Sawhney, learned Senior Counsel for the JMI, has inter alia relied on Sections 36 and 37 of the Wakf Act to contend that an unregistered Wakf Deed has no legal efficacy. He has also taken us through various other documents, in the nature of complaints written by the alleged contemnors, on 30.4.2000, 4.5.2000, 26.5.2000, 20.6.2000 to the Police Authorities, and a letter dated 26.6.2000 to the Vice-Chancellor of the JMI. All these letters speak of a Masjid (Mosque), named as Madina Masjid, then existing in the area. Mr. Sawhney's contention is that these communications have been engineered in anticipation of the acquisition Notifications which eventually came to be published on 13.7.2000.

(3.) On behalf of the alleged contemnors, Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that Khasra Nos.35 admeasures 7 Bigha, 12 Biswa corresponding to 7600 square yards approximately. It is his submission that a challenge has been laid to the acquisition of only 2250 square yards out of this Khasra No. in CW 5046/2000. It is his contention that the said Writ Petition 5046/2000 did not relate to or concern the land on which the Masjid has been existing; neither the Wakf established by Deed dated 28.1.1992 mentioned above nor the Mutawalli have challenged the acquisition of the land. In contempt proceedings we need not enter upon the controversy of whether the Wakf has been properly constituted under the Wakf Act. Mr. Sethi's contention is that since the Wakf or the Mutawalli or the Managing Committee had not approached the Court in CW 5046/2000, the direction to maintain status quo did not enure to their benefits and, therefore, was not applicable to the alleged contemnors. It is explained that even the Order dated 12.12.2000, passed by Vijender Jain, J., therefore, has no bearing to the alleged contemnors. Mr. Sethi has also contended that an Award has not been announced till date and the acquisition proceedings remain inchoate. JMI is, therefore, only a prospective beneficiary and cannot espouse the grievance of the appropriate Government, which has till date not taken possession of the land sought to be acquired.