Mohammad Khalil v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.384 of 2017 • Mohammad Khalil S/o Sheikh Barat Ali, Aged About 92 Years R/o Behind Aara Machine, Near Pani Tanki, Bankimongara, Police Station Bankimongra Civil And Revenue District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

4. Station House Officer, Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

6. The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

7. Sayyad Ijaharul Haque Mir S/o Sayyed Mohammad Safi Mir, President, R/o Quarter No. B-53, S E C L, Balgi Colony, Post Balgi, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

8. Tufail Ahmed S/o A. Ahmed, R/o 2/6 S E C L Colony, Bankimongra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4:

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, GA For Respondent No.5 & 6 :

Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.7 & 8 :

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 06/04/2017 Heard.

2.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not being allowed to

use the disputed place for burial by the respondents No.7 & 8 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Devbandi Wahabi Sunni Muslim. 3.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.5 & 6-Waqf Board submit that the respondents have not put any such restriction and the petitioner will not face any obstruction from the official respondents to perform burial ceremony at the disputed burial ground. 4.

Learned counsel for respondents No.7 & 8 also submits that no such specific restrictions have been placed by them. 5.

In view of the submissions, which have been made by learned counsel for respective respondents, the apprehension of the petitioner, if any, should come to an end. Order passed by this Court in the present case make it clear that there should not be any amount of confusion prevailing in the mind of any official including the respondents that the petitioner will be allowed to perform ceremony in the burial ground without raising any objection that he belongs to Devbandi Wahabi Sunni Muslim.

6.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed off. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane