Petitioners' challenge against 1985 SRO on Wakaf properties deemed unsustainable due to lack of legal standing and over three decades of delay.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, dismissed a writ petition filed by Satish Sasan and others challenging the validity of SRO 320, issued in 1985, which pertains to the notification of Wakaf properties in Tehsil Poonch. The court found the petition to be not maintainable due to the petitioners' lack of locus standi and the inordinate delay of over three decades in filing the challenge.
The petitioners, claiming to be social activists and concerned citizens, sought to declare SRO 320 null and void, arguing that it was issued without proper inquiry as required under the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978. They contended that the SRO had wrongly designated several government lands and public utility properties as Wakaf properties. However, the court noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infringement of their legal, fundamental, or statutory rights, which is a prerequisite for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is meant for the enforcement of legal rights and cannot be invoked by individuals who are mere strangers to the subject matter. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgments in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., the court reiterated that only aggrieved persons with legal rights directly impacted by the action can maintain such petitions.
In addition to the issue of locus standi, the court highlighted the significant delay in filing the petition. The SRO had been in effect since 1985, and the challenge was brought only after more than thirty years. The court pointed out that such delays defeat equity and stated that the discretionary and equitable nature of writ jurisdiction does not favor those who approach the court after such an extraordinary lapse of time.
The court also noted that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact regarding the nature and ownership of the properties, which are inappropriate for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. Matters concerning Wakaf properties should be addressed by the Wakf Tribunal, as established by the Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum.
In conclusion, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to establish a legal right or interest in the subject matter and the inordinate delay in challenging the SRO. The judgment reinforces the principles of locus standi and timely legal action in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Bottom Line:
Lack of locus standi and inordinate delay in challenging SRO renders the writ petition as not maintainable.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of Constitution of India, J&K Wakafs Act, 1978, J&K Wakafs Act, 2001
Satish Sasan v. State of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc id # 2859792
