Case: Ramjas Foundation  Vs. Union Of India

2. Rai Sahib Kedar Nath, who retired as District Judge from the Punjab Judicial Service started three schools in Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Bazar Sita Ram and Daryaganj, Delhi between 1912 and 1916 in the memory of his father, Lala Ramjas Mal. He purchased land measuring about 1800 bighas in villages Chowkri Mubarikabad and Sadhora Khurd, which now form part of NCR Delhi from his own resources and by collecting money in the form of donations from other philanthropists. In a public function held on 25.12.1916 in Ramjas School, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Rai Sahib Kedar Nath is said to have made an announcement that he had created a Wakf and dedicated and donated all his movable and immovable properties including the land in villages Chowkri Mubarikabad and Sadhora Khurd to the said school for charitable purposes, namely, advancement and promotion of education to the public and poor students. In 1917, he formed Ramjas College Society and got the same registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as a charitable institution. The objects of the Society were asprovide school and university education for boys and girls.(ii)To maintain schools, colleges, boarding houses and training institutes for training of teachers.(iii)To provide means for imparting technical and industrial education in connection with the institutions under the control of foundation.(iv)To provide means for imparting a sound moral and catholic religious education free from superstitious and controversial matters and based on the Vedas and ancient Shastras.(v)To encourage and take part in Scientific Research of various kinds as well as in the study translation and publication of the Sanskrit literature and philosophy of ancient India.(vi)To amalgamate with the foundation any other societies having objects similar to those or any of these of the Foundation.(vii)To give loans to the institutions aided, run managed by or under the control of the Foundation and for the benefits of the students studying in the said institutions, aid, grants, donations, subscribe to Government and/or semiGovernment relief funds, award scholarships, fellowships, stipends of any kind as also to take/accept donations, gifts and charities, etc.After some time, Rai Sahib Kedar Nath formed a Managing Committee of which he was the President. On 25.6.1936, he transferred the entire land to the Society by executing a release deed. In 1967, the name of the Society was changed from Ramjas College Society to Ramjas Foundation and the same was registered as such.4. By notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘thethe Chief Commissioner of Delhi proposed acquisition of 34070 acres land including 872 bighas and 17 biswas land of appellant No. 1 situated at Chowkri Mubarikabad and 730 bighas land situated at Sadhora Khurd for planned development of Delhi excluding the following categories ofland and evacuee land;(b)the land already notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for any Government Scheme;(c)the land already notified either under Section 4 or 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for House Building Cooperative Societies mentioned in Annexure III;(d)the land under graveyards, tombs, shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and Wakf property.The objections filed on behalf of appellant No. 1 under Section 5A of the Act through Mr. Ratan Lal Gupta, Advocate were rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter, three different notifications were issued under Section 6 of the Act.6. The acquisition of landvide notification dated 13.11.1959 was challenged in large number of petitions filed in Delhi High Court which were dismissed. The appeals filed against the orders of the Delhi High Court were dismissed by this Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285  and Lila Ram v. Union of India, (1975) 2 SCC 547. 7. Appellant No.1 also filed several cases in the Delhi High Court and this Court questioning the acquisition of its land and consequential actions taken by the respondents. The particulars of the cases filed by appellant No. 1 and their result are detailed below:Chowkri Mubarikabad(i)The first writ petition bearing No. 409/1968 was filed by appellant No. 1 in the Delhi High Court for quashing notifications dated 13.11.1959 and 28.2.1968 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively mainly on the ground that its land is exempted from acquisition in terms of Clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 because it was a Wakf property. This assertion was contested by the respondents. They pleaded that the property in dispute is neither a Wakf nor it can be treated as Wakf because it had not been created by a Muslim. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the adjudication of the writ petition would need determination of complicated questions of fact and such questions cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thereupon, the Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No. 1 sought leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a civil suit. His prayer was granted by the Court.(ii)Immediately after disposal of the writ petition, appellant No.1 filed Suit No. 451/1971 with the following substantivedecree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that since the plaintiffs society is a charitable education institution and the land in dispute is a wakf property or in the nature of wakf property, the same is exempt from the purview of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of Clause (d) of para 2 of the Notification No.dated 13.11.1959 and the impugned notifications, acquisition notices and the proceedings consequent thereon are void abinitio, without jurisdiction, discriminatory, arbitrary, vague, indefinite, ultra vires, against the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and are liable to be set aside anddetailed consideration of the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit. Appellant No. 2Shri Ram Kanwar Gupta joined appellant No. 1 in filing appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Courtvide judgment dated 18.5.2001. Thereafter, notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued on 23.7.2001 and possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority.Sadhora Khurd(i)W.P. No. 213/1973 filed by appellant No.1 challenging the acquisition of land situated at Sadhora Khurd was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as withdrawn.(ii)After 5 years, appellant No. 1 filed CWP No. 106/1978 for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 and notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Courtvide its order dated 31.1.1978.(iii)Civil Appeal No. 2213 of 1978 filed by appellant No. 1 against the order of the Division Bench was dismissed by this Court on 13.11.1972 on the ground of delay and blameworthy conduct of appellant No.Foundation v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC (Suppl.) 20.(iv)After dismissal of the civil appeal, the Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No.dated 7.6.1994 and supplementary Award95 andall dated 11.11.1994 in respect of 718 bighas 14 biswas land situated at Sadhora Khurd and took possession of 676 bighas and 8 biswas of land.(v)Appellant No. 1 challenged the awards in CWP No. 4343/1997 and prayed for quashing the action of the respondents to take possession of the acquired land. It further prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondents to release land by issuing notification under Section 48 of the Act. Appellant No. 1 filed another writ petition (CWP No. 5493/1999) for grant of a declaration that land situated in village Sadhora Khurd continues to be in its possession. By an order dated 26.4.2000, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed CWP No. 4343/1997 but gave a direction to the Lt. Governor to pass appropriate order on the application made by appellant No. 1 for denotification of the acquired land. Similar order appears to have been passed in CWP No. 5493/1999.(vi)In the meanwhile, Bhagwan Dass filed CWP No. 1811/1995 by way of public interest litigation and prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to take possession of 730 bighas of land and use the same as per the plan of ZoneThat petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26.4.2000 by taking cognizance of the statement made by the Counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority that a decision had been taken not to release land of appellant No.1 from acquisition.(vii)The orders passed by the High Court in CWP Nos. 1811/1995, 4343/1997 and 5493/1999 were challenged before this Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15017, 15216 and 19741 of 2000 on several grounds including thethe petitioner society having been created by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath, Retired District Judge, Punjab thereby dedicating all his movable and immovable properties, for Charitable purposes establishing to run the schools and colleges for public charity of education covered under and/or is Wakf and property held is or in the nature of a waqf property even if the Wakf Act may not be applicable to such society being not attached to any specific caste and/or religion.(iv)Because a notification issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act also beingis liable to be struck down if it is contrary to therights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, as in view of the decision of thisCourt in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, reported at (1985) 1 SCC 641 , para 83 at 693.(v)Because any law and/or notification under the statute i.e. the Land Acquisition Act being discriminatory on ground of caste or religion is liable to be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution and must be quashed as all the special leave petitions were disposed by this Court on 4.2.2002 in the following terms:‘We have heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners. We are not satisfied that this petition merits further consideration by this Court. However, it is pointed out that in spite of the directions issued by the High Court that the representation filed by the petitioners before the Lt. Governor of Delhi for considering their case for denotification of the land in question has not been disposed of till date. If that be so we direct that the application so filed will be disposed of within a period of six weeks fromcompliance of the direction given by the High Court and this Court Lt. Governor, Delhi passed order dated 18.6.2002 and rejected the prayer of appellant No. 1 for denotification of its land by recording the followinghave gone through all the papers on record and have considered the matter at length. Possession of area admeasuring 563 bighas 07 biswas was taken by DDA onbasis as land was not physically vacant. The said area is replete with factories. The Anand Parbat Industrial Area as it has come to be popularly known, has come up in a haphazard and unplanned manner and has over the years, also become degraded and decrepit. The congested and unsystematic growth of factories in the area has turned it into a veritable public hazard. Safety considerations are wanting. Most of the lanes are too narrow for a fire tender to enter. The electricity distribution system is problematic. The other infrastructure and basic services are also inadequate. Apart from being a congested and degraded cluster of factories operating inconditions, the area is also hazardous where public safety requirements warrant early remedial measures. The area is mentioned in the Master Plan of Delhi asare thus sound and compelling reasons to effect redevelopment of the area in the overall public interest. For this the entire land mass needs to be physically taken over, planned, roads and lanes straightened and widened to the extent feasible and new infrastructure laid down as per the plans. Institutional services like fire service, electricity substations, etc. will have to be properly located. A redevelopment plan on these lines has, in fact, been prepared after consulting the occupants. The only possible way to achieve implementation of theplan is through land acquisition. Without physically taking over the entire chunk of land, laying of infrastructure as per theplans will not be possible. Nor is it desirable or safe to delay any longerredevelopment of thearea, which is an imminent necessity.For the aforesaid considerations, I do not find it prudent, desirable or feasible to denotify the said chunk of land. Denotification of 67 bighas 14 biswas land has already been made in favour of the petitioners who have thereby received a fair degree of consideration from the Government already. Any further denotification will be contrary to public interest and as such cannot be made. The petitions/representations in this regard are hereby disposed ofNo. 1 challenged the order of the Lt. Governor in W.P. No. 5138/2002, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by detailed judgment dated 6.2.2004. S.L.P. (C) No. 7026 of 2004 filed against that judgment was dismissed as withdrawn.

Court's reasoning:
10. We have considered the respective submissions. In our view, the appeal deserves to be dismissed because the appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands. In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, acquisition of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd was challenged on the ground of violation of Section 5A of the Act and also on the ground that land in question is exempted from acquisition because it is a Wakf property. Another plea taken by appellant No. 1 was that if the land belonging to educational and charitable institutions established by Hindus andis not treated as Wakf property, then the exemption Clause (d) is liable to be declared void for violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.In our view, the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under Clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 by the High Court and this Court.17. Notwithstanding the above noted conclusion, we have thought it proper to deal with the issue raised in the appeal on merits. The institution of Wakf owes its origin to a rule laid down by the prophet of Islam. It meanstying up of property in the ownership of God the Almighty and the devotion of the profits for the benefit of human beings. When once it is declared that a particular property is Wakf, or any such expression is used as implies Wakf, or the tenor of the document shows, if there is athat a dedication to pious or charitable purpose is meant, the right of Wakif is extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the Almighty. In his book on Mohammedan Law (Fourth Edition) Volume I, Ammer Ali has said,person or whatever creed may create Wakf, but the law requires that the object for which the dedication is made should be lawful according to the creed of the dedicator as well as the Islamic doctrines. Divine approbation being the essential in the constitution of a Wakf if the object for which a dedication is made is sinful, either according to the laws of Islam or to the creed of the dedicator it would not beThis shows that a non Muslim can also create a Wakf for any purpose which is religious under the Mohammedan Law. However, the object of the Wakf must be lawful according to the religious creed of the maker as well.18. While dealing with the question whether the land belonging to appellant No.1 is Wakf property and is exempted from acquisition, the learned Single Judge analysed the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, referred to the concept ofpropounded by Ammer Ali, outlines of Mohammedan Law by Prof. A.A.A. Fayzee (Chapter IX pg.the judgments of the Privy Council and various High Courts in Vidya Viruthi v. Baluswami, AIR 1922 PC 123; Mami v. Kallandar Ammal, 54 IA 23; Motishah v. Abdul Gaffar, AIR 1956 Nag. 38; Arur Singh v. Badar Din, AIR 1940 Lah. 119; Fuzlur Rahaman v. Anath Bandhu Pal, (1911) 16 CWN 114; Misra Hidavat Beg v. Seth Behari Lal, AIR 1941 All.The Division Bench also rejected the argument that if Wakf created byis excluded from Clause (d) then the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by observing that the said plea was not pressed before the learned Single Judge and even in the grounds of appeal, this plea was not taken. In the opinion of the Division Bench, by omitting to press the point before the learned Single Judge and not taking a ground in the memo of appeal, the appellants will be deemed to have abandoned this part of challenge to the acquisition proceedings.20. The argument of Mr. R. Venkataramani that by dedicating the land for a charitable purpose Rai Sahib Kedar Nath intended to create a Wakf lacks merit and deserves to be rejected. In the function organized on 25.12.1916 in Ramjas School, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandani Chowk, the dedicator is said to have made an announcement that he had created a Wakf and donated all his moveable and immoveable properties to the Society for charitable purposes but no evidence was produced before the learned Single Judge to prove this. Rather, the evidence produced before the learned Single Judge shows that even after the so called dedication of land for charitable purposes, the same continued in the name of Rai Sahib Kedar Nath till 1936 when he executed the release deed in favour of the Trust of which he himself was the founder trustee apart from being the Manager of the school and the President of the Society. The hawan ceremony performed by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath which was preceded by Samarpan and Sankalp also shows that he did not intend to create a Wakf. This is the reason why the objects of Ramjas College Society formed in 1917 do not make a mention of the Wakf allegedly created by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath. In the deed of settlement executed by the British Government, the institution was described as a public educational charity and not as a Wakf. Therefore, the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that what was created by Rai Sahib Kedar Nath was a public charitable trust and not a Wakf and the property acquiredvide notification dated 13.11.1959 was not a Wakf property does not call for interference.