MOHD. AKRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 23556 of 2025

Mohd. Akram
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Mohammad Khalid, Rajesh Kumar
                                    Bind, S. Kamal Akhtar Khan, Shami
                                    Ullah
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C.

Court No. - 5
                     HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
                     HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-Respondents and perused the record.
2. Present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, with the following prayers:-

     "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
     commanding and directing the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 and 5
     alongwith other revenue authorities to re-construct/re-establish
     the Masjid Sarai Wali, Kasba Patwai, Tehsil Shahabad, District
     Rampur at the place, where it was earlier exist forthwith.

     2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
     commanding and directing the respondent no. 2, 3, 4 and 5
     alongwith other revenue authorities to consider and decide the
     application of the petitioner dated 10.07.2025, pending before
     them, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble
     Court."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon para nos.17 and 19 of
the counter affidavit which reads as follows:-
     "17. That, the contents of paragraph no.10 of the writ petition are
     not admitted as stated hence, denied. In reply thereto, it is
     submitted here that the annexure mentioned in this paragraph
     does not relate to the mosque in question i.e. the Sarai wali
     Masjid. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the mosque in
     question was recorded in the Muslim Waqf Department U.P.,
     then the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of
     section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provides that "85 - Bar
     of jurisdiction of civil courts. No suit or other legal proceeding
     shall lie in any 2 [civil court, revenue court and any other
     authority] in respect of any dispute, question or other matter
     relating to any 1 [waqf], 1 [waqf] property or other matter which
                                                                                               WRIC No. 23556 of 2025
                                                                       2

                                            is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal."
                                            19. That, the contents of paragraph nos. 12 & 13 of the writ
                                            petition are not admitted as stated hence, denied. In reply thereto,
                                            it is submitted here that the encroachers were given a legal notice
                                            to remove the illegal construction over the land in dispute. In
                                            response to this notice, the Committee members, through an
                                            affidavit dated 11.06.2025, informed remove the encroachment
                                            on the Mosque itself. Despite the above affidavit, since the
                                            Mosque Committee did not remove the encroachment, hence, on
                                            24.06.2025, a joint team of the Revenue Department, Police and
                                            Public     Works      Department      removed     all    remaining
                                            construction/encroachment"
                                    4. The aforesaid facts were disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                    5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that
                                    since disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case which
                                    cannot adjudicated upon without appraisal of evidence, thus the instant
                                    petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It
                                    is well open for the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner under
                                    law.
                                    6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.


                                                                             (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Gaurav Kuls




Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad