The Bombay High Court dismissed an interim application filed by Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole, alias Pardeshi Baba Trust, which challenged an earlier order of the court directing the demolition of an illegal Dargah in Thane, Maharashtra. The High Court on April 30, 2025, had ordered the demolition of the Dargah, which expanded across 17,610 sq. ft from mere 160 sq. ft., sans the approval of the municipal corporation.
While dismissing the petition, a bench of justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata said, “We are unable to accept that a mob fury and the mere footfalls of people on a particular piece of land based on an assertion that this is a Dargah can prove that it is a legal structure. This is a classic case of a usurpation of the land, and such a method and for such a usurpation, the Court cannot grant its imprimatur.”
The Supreme Court directed the Trust to avail appropriate legal remedy
The application was filed in pursuance of a Supreme Court order, dated July 17, 2025, that directed the Trust to avail an appropriate legal remedy by approaching the High Court and seeking a recall of its earlier judgment. The Apex Court granted a seven-days status quo on the Dargah, allowing the Trust time to approach the High Court. The Trust had contended before the Supreme Court that the decision of the High Court was flawed because it did not take into consideration the fact that a civil suit filed with respect to the Dargah was dismissed in April 2025. It argued that only 3,600 sq. ft. of the construction was disputed and not the entire 17,610 sq. ft.
A party coming to court must come with clean hands: HC
In the present interim application before the High Court, the applicants claimed that the Dargah existed on the site even before 1982. However, the High Court, in its judgment dated July 9, 2025, rejected the applicants’ claim and said that the land was usurped by the Trust. “In our view, the Applicants have neither paid any consideration for the acquisition of the land nor have they taken any permission for constructing the structure. It is clearly a usurpation of rights based on a mere Notice publication by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. We find no merit in the contention that, by virtue of a Public Notice by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, one can claim ownership of structures and lands and thereby preempt the rightful owners from claiming the right to their property or objecting to illegal constructions being done on their property,” the High Court said.
Slamming the Trustees, the High Court said that the they did not take any permission for any construction at all. “A party coming to a Court must come with clean hands. He must state and produce all facts and documents on record to prove his ownership as well as the permissions taken for the construction of a structure,” the court said.
“Admittedly, there is no permission taken by the Applicants for even a single square foot of construction. Admittedly, the so-called structure has been increased to a humongous structure of more than 20,000 sq. ft. Such a party, in our view, cannot claim any equities. The claim of a structure being a Dargah must be proved by the Applicants in appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court. There is nothing produced to prove that this was a Dargah prior to their being registered as a charitable institution and being the owner of this structure,” the court added.
Applicant must independently prove ownership: HC
Regarding the civil suit relied on by the applicants, the High Court said that the a mere dismissal of a suit filed against the Defendant (current applicant ) does not confirm any right of the Defendant on the structure or the land. “The Applicant must
independently prove the right to the structure as well as the land to in order that the Court would direct protection of the structure,” the court said.
The High Court noted that the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, held in the suit that the Trust encroached upon the land in question. “The Judgment also clearly shows that the Defendants (current applicant) have failed to prove their title to the suit land either by a conveyance or by adverse possession,” the High Court said. “Interestingly, the Judgment observed that the contention of the Applicants was that the present Writ Petition was regarding a different property and not the same as Dargah. Therefore, the Applicants has himself admitted that the Dargah pointed out in the Government Gazette of the year 1982 is on a different property and not on the property for which the Writ Petition was filed and Orders were passed,” the court added.
The judges also took notice of the fact that the Trustees were granted ample time by the municipal corporation to respond to demolition notices but the they failed to appear for the hearing. The court pointed out that the argument of the Trustees was that a public notice issued by the Charity Commissioner, through which they claimed the ownership of the structure as Darga, was not objected to by anyone. But the Trustees could not produce any evidence to show that they possessed the structure.
“In view of the aforesaid, the structure deserves to be demolished at the earliest and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of the uploading of this order on the official website of the Bombay High Court,” the court ordered.
