In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has sided with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in a dispute over the ownership of three historic buildings in Burhanpur. The court rejected the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board’s claim to the properties, which include the tomb of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan’s daughter-in-law, Biwi Ki Masjid, and the tombs of Adil Shah and Begum Shuja.

The case arose when the ASI challenged a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board claiming ownership of these historic buildings. The ASI argued that these structures were protected under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1904, placing them under the guardianship of the ASI, and could not be arbitrarily declared as Waqf property. The court agreed, ruling that the Waqf Board’s notification was invalid and lacked a legal basis.

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, presiding over the case, delivered a stern rebuke to the Waqf Board‘s legal representatives during the July 26 hearing. The judge questioned the basis of the Board’s 1989 notification declaring these structures as Waqf property, stating, “No one knows who owned this property before the 1989 notification, no one knows anything. It was decided and the property was declared Waqf.”

During the hearing, Justice Ahluwalia questioned the Waqf Board’s counsel, Ukarsh Aggarwal, on how the properties came to be classified as Waqf. The counsel’s inability to provide a satisfactory explanation led the judge to express concern over the potential for the Waqf Board to claim any historical building as their property, including iconic structures like the Taj Mahal and Red Fort. He stressed that such claims must adhere to the legal procedures established by the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.

In a moment of particular tension during the hearing, Justice Ahluwalia remarked to the Waqf Board’s counsel, “Tomorrow, you will declare all historic buildings from the Taj Mahal and Red Fort as Waqf Board property. You can take the Taj Mahal, even the Red Fort, who is refusing?”

The court ultimately quashed the Waqf Board’s notification and ruled in favor of the ASI, affirming that the Waqf Board cannot claim rights over properties covered under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1904.