Can't claim Taj, Waqf eats crow in SC

Can't claim Taj, Waqf eats crow in SC
Published on: 

The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it had no written proof to back its claim that Taj Mahal was a Waqf property. The Sunni Board said the property belonged to the “Almighty” and the Waqf Board should be allowed to administer the Mughal era monument.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the issue of declaring Taj Mahal as Waqf property is the crucial question involved in the legal case filed before it and it will have to examine the claim of the Board. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has opposed the unilateral decision of the UP Waqf Board to declare Taj Mahal as Waqf property as according to it the ownership of the property vests in the Government of India.

With the Board clarifying that Emperor Shah Jahan left no proof giving Taj Mahal to the Waqf, the controversy has been given a quietus for the present. However, it said for all practical purposes, Taj Mahal must be administered by the Waqf Board.

The SC argued that any property to be declared as Waqf property must have a basis that can be examined. The Board has registered Taj Mahal as Waqf property and to now claim that it does not wish to stake ownership claim over the property will not help, the Bench observed.

It was for this purpose, the Bench had on the earlier date sought proof on Taj Mahal being declared as Waqf property. The SC observed that if someone does not claim ownership over a land, that person will have no legal right to keep the property in possession.

Posting the matter for July 27 for final hearing, the SC asked ASI to indicate what facilities are being provided to Waqf at Taj Mahal and whether it wished to continue the same in future.

The proceedings in the court are significant as the decision, one way or the other, will determine the fate of the decision taken by Waqf Board in July 2005 to unilaterally claim rights over Taj Mahal.

According to sources in the ASI, the decision of the Board has to go or else it can stake similar claim over other national monuments such as Red Fort and Fatehpur Sikri.

Daily Pioneer
dailypioneer.com