On Monday(23rd Sept), The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea challenging the installation of Maharani of Jhansi’s statue at Shahi Idgah park in Sadar Bazar. Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the claim that the entire property within the Idgah’s walls belonged to the Shahi Idgah.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Monday(23rd Sept), The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the installation of a statue of Maharani of Jhansi at the Shahi Idgah park located in the Sadar Bazar area of the national capital. The petition was originally filed by the Managing Committee of Shahi Idgah, which objected to the installation of the statue, claiming that the park falls under the property of the Shahi Idgah.
The case, which has garnered considerable public interest, was finally resolved on Monday when Justice Dharmesh Sharma pronounced the court’s decision. The court had previously issued a temporary order directing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to maintain the park but not proceed with the installation of the statue until the matter was resolved.
In the final judgment, Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected the claim made by the Managing Committee of the Shahi Idgah that the entire property, including the park surrounding the Idgah, belonged to the Shahi Idgah. The court took into account the affidavit submitted by the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB), which clarified the extent of the property owned by the Shahi Idgah.
The court clearly stated-
“Firstly, the petitioner/Committee’s claim that the entire property, including the surrounding park and open grounds outside the Shahi Idgah’s perimeter, belongs to the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB), is clearly disproven by the short affidavit submitted by respondent No. 4/DWB. The notification dated 16.04.1970 clearly demarcates the Shahi Idgah within Khasra No. 11, covering 31,601 square yards, as supported by the Jamabandi records for 1973-1974. Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that the entire property within the Idgah’s walls belongs to the Shahi Idgah is unsustainable in both fact and law.”
The Court emphasized that a joint inspection conducted by the DDA, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the DWB further corroborated the findings that the park and open spaces surrounding the Idgah do not belong to the Shahi Idgah, but rather to the DDA.
Justice Sharma cited the report from the inspection, stating-
“This position was further confirmed during a joint inspection conducted by the respondents, including the DDA and MCD, along with members of the DWB on 13.09.2024. It is undeniable that the parks and open grounds within the Idgah boundary belong to respondent No. 1/DDA.”
This inspection was crucial in determining the rightful ownership of the land, which ultimately allowed the court to make an informed decision regarding the installation of the statue.
The case dates back to when the Delhi Development Authority had proposed to install a statue of Maharani of Jhansi, one of India’s most revered freedom fighters, at the Shahi Idgah park. However, the Managing Committee of the Shahi Idgah objected to the move, claiming that the entire property within the boundary of the Idgah, including the park, belonged to the mosque.
The committee approached the Delhi High Court, seeking an order to stop the installation of the statue, arguing that the land in question was part of the religious site and therefore could not be used for such purposes. In response to the petition, the court initially ordered the DDA to halt any installation work and maintain the status quo until further deliberation.
ALSO READ: Ghazipur Drain Deaths|| “Pay Rs.20 Lakh Compensation to Legal Heirs”: Delhi HC Orders DDA
The court analyzed the ownership claims of the petitioner in light of the affidavit submitted by the Delhi Waqf Board. The notification dated April 16, 1970, was key evidence in the court’s decision, as it explicitly mentioned that the Shahi Idgah only covers Khasra No. 11, which measures 31,601 square yards. The court also referred to the Jamabandi records from 1973-74, which further reinforced this position.
Given these facts, the court found no legal basis to support the Managing Committee’s claim that the park and surrounding open spaces were part of the Shahi Idgah’s property. The court observed that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the boundaries set by the 1970 notification and subsequent records.
The Bench referred to a previous decision by the Court, which had already established that the land surrounding the Shahi Idgah mosque, including the parks and open grounds, is the property of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court emphasized that these areas had been maintained by the Horticultural Division-II of the DDA, reaffirming its jurisdiction over the space.
“The bottom line is that, since the parks and open grounds adjacent to the Shahi Idgah and within its walls are the property of respondent No. 1/DDA, it is entirely the DDA’s responsibility to allocate portions of this land for public use as it sees appropriate.”
– the Court observed.
This statement from the Bench clarified the role of the DDA in managing the open grounds, underlining that it had the authority to make decisions regarding the land, including allowing public use or allocating space for installations such as the statue in question.
The petitioner in this case was the Shahi Idgah Managing Committee, which raised concerns over the installation of the statue, claiming it could potentially infringe on their religious rights. However, the Court found no merit in these concerns. The single-judge Bench noted that even if the Committee had the locus standi (the legal standing) to file the petition, the allegations regarding the endangerment of religious rights were unfounded.
“Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the committee has the legal standing to file the petition, the Court fails to see how their right to offer prayers or perform any religious rites was being threatened in any way.”
-the Court asserted.
The judgment went on to explain that the installation of a statue in the park did not interfere with the Committee’s right to practice their religion or offer prayers within the Shahi Idgah mosque. The maintenance and management of the adjoining land, which falls under the jurisdiction of the DDA, were found to have no bearing on the religious rights of the petitioners.
Addressing the Committee’s opposition to the maintenance of the parks and the installation of the statue by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Court remarked that the petitioners had no legal standing to object to the DDA’s role in maintaining the area. The Court reiterated that the DDA, as the rightful owner, had the authority to manage the space, including the upkeep and installation of structures as it saw fit.
“Given this, the petitioner has no legal or fundamental right to challenge the maintenance of the parks and open grounds surrounding the Shahi Idgah by respondent No.1/DDA, nor to oppose the installation of the statue by respondent No.2/MCD at its request.”
– the Court added.
This statement highlights the Court’s stance that the opposition to the installation of the statue lacked legal backing, further solidifying the DDA’s right to make decisions regarding the land.
In light of these observations, the Court found the petition to be without any cause of action and proceeded to dismiss it. The decision reinforced the idea that disputes over public land and its usage need to be based on concrete legal grounds, and that mere apprehensions of potential interference with religious rights would not suffice in the absence of actual harm or infringement.
The judgment concluded that-
“the plea was without any cause of action and dismissed it.”
The Shahi Idgah Managing Committee was represented by Senior Advocate Viraj R. Datar, along with advocates Imran Ahmed, Sajid Ahmed, Haji Mohd. Iqbal, and Shuaib Ahmed Khan. Their arguments were focused on the perceived threats to the religious rights of the Idgah and its followers due to the installation of the statue in the surrounding grounds.
On the other hand, the DDA, as the respondent, was represented by Standing Counsel Shobhna Takiar along with advocate Kuljeet Singh. They strongly defended the DDA’s ownership and its authority to manage the public land in question, emphasizing that the installation of the statue was in compliance with the law.
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), responsible for installing the statue, was represented by advocates Abhinav Sharma and Mahender Shukla. Their stance aligned with that of the DDA, reinforcing the legal grounds for the installation.
Additionally, the Delhi Police, another respondent in the case, was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh, along with advocates Waize Ali Noor and V. Pratap Singh. They supported the DDA and MCD’s positions, ensuring that the installation did not violate any laws or cause disruptions to public order.
Lastly, the Delhi Waqf Board, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose, Additional Standing Counsel Firoz Iqbal Khan, and advocates Rohan Mandal, Mohit Garg, and Bahist E. Jahan, was also involved in the case, ensuring that the religious sentiments and legal rights of the Waqf Board were considered.
