In Tamil Nadu, there once was a cremation ground of Hindus in the name of “Rudrabhoomi”.
This is the story of how WAQF tried to make it their own by continuously fighting.
But FAILED.
Pic: a random Hindu burial ground
1/20
This is the story of how WAQF tried to make it their own by continuously fighting.
But FAILED.
Pic: a random Hindu burial ground
1/20
The land in question was historically used as a burial ground by Hindus but was closed by the municipality in 1867 due to health concerns, with an alternative site allocated for burials.
Pic: logo of Municipal Corporation
2/20
Pic: logo of Municipal Corporation
2/20
Since it was a burial ground anymore, Hindus purchased the land at a valuable price.
Sometime later, Muslims started claiming burial rights of the land.
They even formed a committe named-
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee.
Pic: Muslims praying
3/20
Sometime later, Muslims started claiming burial rights of the land.
They even formed a committe named-
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee.
Pic: Muslims praying
3/20
In 1975, Director of Survey & Settlement initiated proceedings under Section 19A of Abolition Act, determining that:
1. Hindus had acquired the land for valuable consideration
2. They’re long-term occupants
3. Land was no longer required for burial purposes
4/20
1. Hindus had acquired the land for valuable consideration
2. They’re long-term occupants
3. Land was no longer required for burial purposes
4/20
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee challenged this decision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Madras.
In 1976,
their revision was dismissed.
Pic: Logo of Revenue Department
5/20
In 1976,
their revision was dismissed.
Pic: Logo of Revenue Department
5/20
In 1990, the Revenue department issued a Government Order (G.O.) confirming the previous decision, allowing the Hindus to remain in possession of the land.
6/20
6/20
The Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee subsequently filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court.
They challenged the G.O. and argued that proper hearing procedures were not followed during the revision process.
7/20
They challenged the G.O. and argued that proper hearing procedures were not followed during the revision process.
7/20
The writ petitions were dismissed by the Madras High Court.
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee filed an appeal.
8/20
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee filed an appeal.
8/20
Year 1999:
The appeals were allowed by the Madras High Court.
The case was remitted back to Tamil Nadu Government.
Govt was asked to give a rehearing and a redetermination to be completed within 3 months.
9/20
The appeals were allowed by the Madras High Court.
The case was remitted back to Tamil Nadu Government.
Govt was asked to give a rehearing and a redetermination to be completed within 3 months.
9/20
Following the directions of Madras High Court, Tamil Nadu govt reconsidered the matter.
Revenue department issued a G.O.
It stated that permission could be granted to Hindu claimants to remain in possession of land u/s 19A of Abolition Act as it belonged to government.
10/20
Revenue department issued a G.O.
It stated that permission could be granted to Hindu claimants to remain in possession of land u/s 19A of Abolition Act as it belonged to government.
10/20
Year 2000:
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee filed another writ petition before Madras High Court.
It challenged the G.O. issued by the Revenue department.
They surprisingly told the Court that the land was declared as a Wakf Property in 1959.
11/20
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee filed another writ petition before Madras High Court.
It challenged the G.O. issued by the Revenue department.
They surprisingly told the Court that the land was declared as a Wakf Property in 1959.
11/20
2005:
Single Bench of Madras HC allowed petition on grounds:
1. Land had been notified as wakf property & could not be alienated u/s 19A.
2. Hindu claimants could not be granted rights without evidence of possession by landholders.
Because:
Once a Waqf, always a Waqf.
12/20
Single Bench of Madras HC allowed petition on grounds:
1. Land had been notified as wakf property & could not be alienated u/s 19A.
2. Hindu claimants could not be granted rights without evidence of possession by landholders.
Because:
Once a Waqf, always a Waqf.
12/20
Hindus claimants appealed the decision.
2009:
Division Bench of Madras High Court allowed appeal.
It set aside single Bench order of High Court while ruling that:
1. Land was not proven to be wakf property;
2. 1959 notification of “suit land” as Waqf is unacceptable.
13/20
2009:
Division Bench of Madras High Court allowed appeal.
It set aside single Bench order of High Court while ruling that:
1. Land was not proven to be wakf property;
2. 1959 notification of “suit land” as Waqf is unacceptable.
13/20
Division Bench of Madras High Court also clarified in its order that:
the land had been recorded as a Hindu cremation ground (“Rudra bhumi”) rather than a Muslim burial ground (“kabristan”) in the official documents.
14/20
the land had been recorded as a Hindu cremation ground (“Rudra bhumi”) rather than a Muslim burial ground (“kabristan”) in the official documents.
14/20
Matter reached to Supreme Court.
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee argued:
Mere non-burial of the dead bodies on the suit land over the last 60 years or so would not alter its nature.
Once a wakf is always a wakf.
(Remember, I told you)
15/20
Salim Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee argued:
Mere non-burial of the dead bodies on the suit land over the last 60 years or so would not alter its nature.
Once a wakf is always a wakf.
(Remember, I told you)
15/20
Analyzing the arguments, the Supreme Court reiterated:
“A wakf is established through an express dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes under Muslim law. However, it found no evidence of such dedication in this case”.
16/20
“A wakf is established through an express dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes under Muslim law. However, it found no evidence of such dedication in this case”.
16/20
Supreme Court further noted that the alleged historical use of the land as a burial ground was insufficient to establish wakf by the user without concrete evidence of its actual use.
17/20
17/20
Regarding the 1959 notification,
Supreme Court emphasised:
It must comply with the provisions of either the Wakf Act, 1954, or the Wakf Act, 1995. These acts mandate conducting surveys and following specific procedures before declaring a property as wakf.”.
Dismissed!
18/20
Supreme Court emphasised:
It must comply with the provisions of either the Wakf Act, 1954, or the Wakf Act, 1995. These acts mandate conducting surveys and following specific procedures before declaring a property as wakf.”.
Dismissed!
18/20
Be it government land, private land, Hindu Mandir, old village, historical monuments - Waqf has claimed almost everything.
Muslims are >14%,
but Waqf Board is India’s 3rd largest landowner.
1st: Indian Armed Forces
2nd: Indian Railways
Hindus?
19/20
opindia.com
Muslims are >14%,
but Waqf Board is India’s 3rd largest landowner.
1st: Indian Armed Forces
2nd: Indian Railways
Hindus?
19/20
opindia.com
Various public lands in India are named as Ram Lila Maidan & Idgah Maidan.
Such lands has been used for public & religious purposes.
Waqf has started objecting to Hindu religious festivals over such lands despite their own claim over them are disputed.
From last year:
20/20
Such lands has been used for public & religious purposes.
Waqf has started objecting to Hindu religious festivals over such lands despite their own claim over them are disputed.
From last year:
20/20
Loading suggestions...