Dwarka Demolition: Gujarat Govt Seeks To Vacate Status-Quo Order, Says Alleged Religious Structures Being Used To Traffick Explosives

The Gujarat government on Monday (January 20) opposed before the High Court the continuance of a status quo order protecting from any action certain properties which are alleged to be religious structures located in Dwarka, arguing that the structures are being used for trafficking explosives.

During the hearing the court also orally enquired into the nature of a property under the Waqf Act as well as the Public Trust Act (PTA). After hearing the matter for some time the court listed it for hearing on Tuesday (January 21). 

During the hearing, Government Pleader (GP) GH Virk appearing for the State submitted before Justice Mauna M Bhatt that the State has removed all encroachments except for the structure which are subjected to status-quo by the court. He then contended that there are material representations in the writ petition that the State has pointed out in the reply based on contemporaneous record and that it was nothing but an attempt to defraud the court.

He then argued that the structures which are being subjected to status-quo are used for "drug trafficking, for trafficking of explosives" and there have been "bomb blasts in the area and the Mujafar of some Dargah was found utilizing the structure for storing explosives".

The court then orally said that there appeared to be disputed questions of facts wherein the petitioner has claimed that the property in question is Waqf property while the State has claimed that subject land is Gaucher land (grazing land).

Virk said answered that from the PTR (Public Trust Register) produced in the record suggests that the property is question is not Waqf property. Furthermore, he submitted that in one of the petitions it is Gaucher land (grazing land) and in another petition it is a Kabristan (Cemetery). He then argued that how can "one build massive lavish structures on Kabarastan" and relied on the satellite images placed on record through Intelligence Bureau. He then questioned the creation of gated communities and handling of drugs inside such premises.

At this stage the petitioner's counsel sought a day's time to file rejoinder in the matter. Meanwhile Virk–appearing for Nagar Palika and the State, said that he was seeking a vacation of the status quo with immediate effect since the petition has been filed on misconceived facts. 

The Court then orally asked “Where were you till date...the construction is not recent”. The GP contended that it has been done over the last five years and the State is taking steps now. He further submitted these 3 structures are 3 out of 600 structures, and 597 structures are demolished across the board of two different communities and nobody has come forward as it is all on Gaucher land and on Kabristan. He then contended that the State has also demolished temples.

The Court then asked, “But the Kabaristan generally belongs to Waqf?”. To this the Virk answered that it is all government land and it is to be used as Kabaristan allotted under the revenue record.

At this stage the court asked, “With regard to the Waqf Act, what priority (do) you have over the (land)? Suppose it is registered (land), assuming that it is registered (land), can it be equated with the Indian Trust Act? That I am a Trust, having some property which is registered, so it be used for the beneficiary of the Trustee of the Trust or whosoever is the beneficiary of the Trust. How can you establish the right over the Waqf property?"

The Counsel appearing for the Waqf board said that there is distinction between the Public Trust Act and the Waqf Act, wherein a property, though, mentioned in the PTR as Trust property or Waqf property, once the property is registered as Waqf property, it cannot be sold.

The Court then asked if the land is registered earlier when the provisions of Public Trust Act were applicable, wherein one needs to register that property under the provisions of the Act with the Public Charitable Institution or if under the provisions of the Trust Act you would register before Waqf.

The Counsel then referring to Section 43 of the Waqf Act submitted that whatever registered before the Bombay Trust Act will automatically be governed under Section 43 of the Waqf Act. 

"So then all provisions of Public Trust Act would go and it would be governed by Waqf Act", the counsel said. 

The GP then argued that the counsel for the Waqf board is partly correct if some survey number is identified as PTR in Waqf property, in the PTR it is mentioned over time about the Waqf property but then contended the 3 cases before the court are the cases where it is not mentioned in the PTR that the subject property is waqf property.

The Court then asked, “Please understand, my question is very clear that, suppose if a X property is registered under PTR, the moment it is written in PTR as Waqf property, it will now go under the Waqf Act? Would that simply absorb the provisions of PTR? Let's see the provision.”

The GP then answered that when this property has to be divested or withdrawn from the Waqf, the provisions of the Waqf Act would come but not in scenarios where one has to carry out removal of unauthorized encroachment.

The Counsel for the Waqf board urged the Court to refer to Section 40 of the Waqf Act (Decision if a property is [waqf] property) Section 43 [(Auqaf] registered before the commencement of this Act deemed to be registered) of the Waqf Act.

The Court then asked if the submission of the counsel for the Waqf board is that "once the property is registered with the board, it automatically becomes the Waqf property", to which the counsel replied in the affirmative. 

The waqf board contended that it has to be established by the petitioners or the (Waqf) board that it was registered under the PTR. It thereafter orally noted that it has to be established by a way of document.

The counsel said that few properties may not be registered as a Waqf property but they are considered as waqf property if they are used for a particular purpose for a long period of time.

The Counsel at this point contended that it requires registration under the PTR or the remedy lies under Section 40 of the Waqf Act. The GP meanwhile said that in the present 3 cases, in which PTR is on record and none of the three survey numbers are Waqf property under the PTR.

Virk further emphasized that out of three cases, two of the cases, revenue survey numbers are given at the relevant point of time to be used as Kabaristan, hence, "one cannot make lavish structures on it". Further he contended in the other case  even the petitioner describes the land as Gaucher land. He then asked how can one have a massive structure on Gaucher land.

The Waqf board counsel then referring to the survey number stated that it refers to the concerned property as Kabristan which is a Waqf property to be used for pious purpose and further referred to the notification of the State Government and sought to place on record before the Court.

The Court then orally remarked, “Because on Kabaristan, you cannot make the construction, you cannot be permitted to construct. So, sanctity is to be maintained”. 

At this the GP then requested the Court to refer to the photographs placed on record and contended that this by "no imagination can be considered as Kabarastan".

The Court then orally asked, “What do you have to say on this? Mr. Shah?"

The GP urged the Court to compare the satellite image from 2010 and 2024, 10 days ago and 14 years ago and pointed out to the usage of area at the waterfront line. The GP then highlighted that a "brand-new boundary walls are created, pakka roads are created and boundary in Kabaristan and large structures are created". 

The Court however orally noted “Kabarastan is to be protected by wall. So, one may not encroach it”.

The GP then questioned the wall surrounding and a gated community surrounding specific structures and added that there are 14 FIRs placed on record registered for these structures stating "illicit activities" are going on within these structures.

Virk stated that the modus operandi regarding the matters before the High Court is "common" wherein under PTR  the land is identified as Kabarastan and then on it there is construction.

The Court then orally asked “So, so far as Kabarastan is concerned that is a Waqf property? You don't dispute that?”

Virk however said that it is not Waqf's property but to be "used as Kabarsatan". "It is ultimately Government waste land and the land for given for Kabarastan, pre-independence," he added. 

Continuing the operation of status quo, the court listed the matter on Tuesday. 

Case Title: Bet Bhadela Muslim Jamat Through President Kadarbhai Abhubhai Malek & Anr. vs State of Gujarat and batch

Case No: R/SCA/497/2025