9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 2. Customary Rights of Shia Community over certain plots and structures. 3. Validity and Enforcement of Civil Court Decisions and Waqf Registrations. 4. Legality of Orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. 5. Res Judicata and Principles Analogous to Res Judicata. Detailed Analysis: 1. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution: The petitioners, representing the Shia community of Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi, claimed that their fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 were infringed by the respondents. They sought a declaration that nine plots of land and structures thereon belonged to the Shia Waqf and that the Shia community had the right to perform religious functions on these plots. They also sought a writ of mandamus to prevent respondents from prohibiting or restraining them from performing their religious practices. 2. Customary Rights of Shia Community over Certain Plots and Structures: The Shia community claimed customary rights to perform religious rites on the nine plots and structures, which included a Mosque, Baradari, Zanana Imambara, Imam Chowk, and others. These rights were based on long-standing practices and previous judicial decisions. The petitioners detailed various religious activities performed during Moharram, asserting that these practices were integral to their faith and had been conducted on these plots from time immemorial. 3. Validity and Enforcement of Civil Court Decisions and Waqf Registrations: The petitioners relied on previous civil court decisions and the registration of Shia Waqfs under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, to assert their rights. Key decisions included: - Suit No. 849 of 1878, which recognized the mosque on Plot No. 246 as a public mosque and affirmed certain rights of the Shias. - Suit No. 424 of 1931, which declared that Plot No. 602/1133 was not a graveyard and restrained Sunni Muslims from using it as such. - Suit No. 232 of 1934, which upheld the Shias' rights over the disputed plots and structures. The Shia community also pointed to the registration of the plots as Shia Waqfs under the 1936 Act, which had become final and conclusive as no suit challenging the registration was filed within the prescribed time. 4. Legality of Orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners challenged the repeated use of Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the executive magistracy of Varanasi to restrict their religious practices. They argued that such orders were perverse and disregarded their established legal rights. The court examined whether orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. were judicial or executive in nature and concluded that they were executive orders. The court emphasized that such orders should be issued in defense of legal rights rather than suppressing them and should target the wrongdoers rather than the lawful exercise of rights. 5. Res Judicata and Principles Analogous to Res Judicata: The respondents contended that the writ petition was barred by res judicata or principles analogous to res judicata due to previous decisions by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that the earlier litigations were not fought in a representative capacity and did not adjudicate the rights on merits. Fresh material was also produced in the present case, which was not available in earlier proceedings. Conclusion: The court held that the Shia community had established their customary rights to perform religious rites on the disputed plots and structures. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the Sunni community from interfering with these rights and directed the executive magistracy to issue orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the principles and guidelines provided in the judgment. The writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
