Even as Parliament pushed forward with the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, it is striking that neither the defenders of Waqf autonomy nor the champions of state oversight invoked this high-profile case.
The original reader can comment by our esteemed guest, Shri MAHENDER Singh was got deleted by mistake. The above is the reply to the same, and I am reposting his comment. My apologies.
—-
This is a reader comment: It is strange that we look at property of an industrialist as a dispute, while clearly he Purchased it by paying the price. Prior ownership of land could be a dispute which should be legally contested in a court, not in Waqf tribunal.
Debate in parliament was quite comprehensive, everyone spoke whatever they wanted to, and Kiran Rejiju did a fantastic job responding to all, barring some useless speakers like Sanjay Singh. More than looking at one disputed property, the idea of the bill is to undo the evils of the earlier act which systematically took over lakhs of acres of land, belonging to govt, poor, hindu, muslim, Sikh all alike.
Strange that nobody is talking about some 3000 crores rupees worth of property amassed by Owaisi.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-articulated response. You raise important points about the broader context of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the intention to rectify systemic issues stemming from the earlier Act—issues that have impacted people across communities. The debate in Parliament was indeed robust, and as you rightly note, the Minister’s replies addressed a wide spectrum of concerns, barring a few unproductive interjections.
That said, the objective of the article is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property in Mumbai by a prominent industrialist. Rather, it is to illustrate how even a transaction executed with all due diligence can become entangled in legal ambiguity—specifically under the provisions of the Central Waqf Act, 1995, and particularly following its 2013 amendments. The fact remains that despite the completion of the sale years ago, the question of jurisdiction under Waqf law and the unresolved status of the dispute continue to linger.
This case was chosen precisely because it typifies the kind of complications the Central Waqf Act can throw up—even retroactively—and speaks to the broader theme of legal uncertainty that the new Bill seeks to address.
Thank you again for engaging meaningfully with the piece.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-articulated response. You raise important points about the broader context of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the intention to rectify systemic issues stemming from the earlier Act—issues that have impacted people across communities. The debate in Parliament was indeed robust, and as you rightly note, the Minister’s replies addressed a wide spectrum of concerns, barring a few unproductive interjections.
That said, the objective of the article is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property in Mumbai by a prominent industrialist. Rather, it is to illustrate how even a transaction executed with all due diligence can become entangled in legal ambiguity—specifically under the provisions of the Central Waqf Act, 1995, and particularly following its 2013 amendments. The fact remains that despite the completion of the sale years ago, the question of jurisdiction under Waqf law and the unresolved status of the dispute continue to linger.
This case was chosen precisely because it typifies the kind of complications the Central Waqf Act can throw up—even retroactively—and speaks to the broader theme of legal uncertainty that the new Bill seeks to address.
Thank you again for engaging meaningfully with the piece.
This is was the reader comment by Shri Mahendra Singh ji.
: It is strange that we look at property of an industrialist as a dispute, while clearly he Purchased it by paying the price. Prior ownership of land could be a dispute which should be legally contested in a court, not in Waqf tribunal.
Debate in parliament was quite comprehensive, everyone spoke whatever they wanted to, and Kiran Rejiju did a fantastic job responding to all, barring some useless speakers like Sanjay Singh. More than looking at one disputed property, the idea of the bill is to undo the evils of the earlier act which systematically took over lakhs of acres of land, belonging to govt, poor, hindu, muslim, Sikh all alike.
Strange that nobody is talking about some 3000 crores rupees worth of property amassed by Owaisi.
—-
Frame a polite reply, acknowledging his analysis and response, but say that the objective of the article is to illustrate the very type of disputes that the Central work of act was throwing up. The fact remains that even after the property was purchased with all due diligence, provisions of the Central work of act, 1995, especially with the moments of 2013 have led to dedication, which still has not been concluded. The idea is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property. Mumbai by an Indus illustrate existing law related disputes out of nothing. Thank you for pointing out.
The original reader can comment by our esteemed guest, Shri MAHENDER Singh was got deleted by mistake. The above is the reply to the same, and I am reposting his comment. My apologies.
—-
This is a reader comment: It is strange that we look at property of an industrialist as a dispute, while clearly he Purchased it by paying the price. Prior ownership of land could be a dispute which should be legally contested in a court, not in Waqf tribunal.
Debate in parliament was quite comprehensive, everyone spoke whatever they wanted to, and Kiran Rejiju did a fantastic job responding to all, barring some useless speakers like Sanjay Singh. More than looking at one disputed property, the idea of the bill is to undo the evils of the earlier act which systematically took over lakhs of acres of land, belonging to govt, poor, hindu, muslim, Sikh all alike.
Strange that nobody is talking about some 3000 crores rupees worth of property amassed by Owaisi.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-articulated response. You raise important points about the broader context of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the intention to rectify systemic issues stemming from the earlier Act—issues that have impacted people across communities. The debate in Parliament was indeed robust, and as you rightly note, the Minister’s replies addressed a wide spectrum of concerns, barring a few unproductive interjections.
That said, the objective of the article is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property in Mumbai by a prominent industrialist. Rather, it is to illustrate how even a transaction executed with all due diligence can become entangled in legal ambiguity—specifically under the provisions of the Central Waqf Act, 1995, and particularly following its 2013 amendments. The fact remains that despite the completion of the sale years ago, the question of jurisdiction under Waqf law and the unresolved status of the dispute continue to linger.
This case was chosen precisely because it typifies the kind of complications the Central Waqf Act can throw up—even retroactively—and speaks to the broader theme of legal uncertainty that the new Bill seeks to address.
Thank you again for engaging meaningfully with the piece.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-articulated response. You raise important points about the broader context of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the intention to rectify systemic issues stemming from the earlier Act—issues that have impacted people across communities. The debate in Parliament was indeed robust, and as you rightly note, the Minister’s replies addressed a wide spectrum of concerns, barring a few unproductive interjections.
That said, the objective of the article is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property in Mumbai by a prominent industrialist. Rather, it is to illustrate how even a transaction executed with all due diligence can become entangled in legal ambiguity—specifically under the provisions of the Central Waqf Act, 1995, and particularly following its 2013 amendments. The fact remains that despite the completion of the sale years ago, the question of jurisdiction under Waqf law and the unresolved status of the dispute continue to linger.
This case was chosen precisely because it typifies the kind of complications the Central Waqf Act can throw up—even retroactively—and speaks to the broader theme of legal uncertainty that the new Bill seeks to address.
Thank you again for engaging meaningfully with the piece.
The reader comment was got deleted by mistake:
This is was the reader comment by Shri Mahendra Singh ji.
: It is strange that we look at property of an industrialist as a dispute, while clearly he Purchased it by paying the price. Prior ownership of land could be a dispute which should be legally contested in a court, not in Waqf tribunal.
Debate in parliament was quite comprehensive, everyone spoke whatever they wanted to, and Kiran Rejiju did a fantastic job responding to all, barring some useless speakers like Sanjay Singh. More than looking at one disputed property, the idea of the bill is to undo the evils of the earlier act which systematically took over lakhs of acres of land, belonging to govt, poor, hindu, muslim, Sikh all alike.
Strange that nobody is talking about some 3000 crores rupees worth of property amassed by Owaisi.
—-
Frame a polite reply, acknowledging his analysis and response, but say that the objective of the article is to illustrate the very type of disputes that the Central work of act was throwing up. The fact remains that even after the property was purchased with all due diligence, provisions of the Central work of act, 1995, especially with the moments of 2013 have led to dedication, which still has not been concluded. The idea is not to criticise the purchase of a prime property. Mumbai by an Indus illustrate existing law related disputes out of nothing. Thank you for pointing out.