Introduction
Acting on a newspaper investigative report, the Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of what it has described as “grave and shocking irregularities” in the recording of large tracts of land and numerous public, religious, educational and residential properties in Jodhpur as Waqf assets — including the official bungalows of two sitting/former High Court Judges and Geeta Bhawan, a major Hindu religious institution. The Court has registered the matter as a Public Interest Litigation, ordered status quo on the properties involved, and directed multiple authorities to produce records and file affidavits.
How the Matter Came Before the Court
The Bench took note of a report published in Dainik Bhaskar (Jodhpur Edition) on 27th July 2026, headlined (in Hindi) “Two Judges’ bungalows, Geeta Bhawan, school-college, and 4 temples registered in the name of the Waqf Board in Jodhpur.” The report, based on revenue records (Jamabandi), Waqf Gazette entries, and the Umeed Portal, pointed to what the Court called prima facie irregularities in how these properties came to be recorded as Waqf assets.
What the Material Before the Court Showed
The Court’s order sets out the following prima facie findings:
- Khasra Nos. 482 (37.06 bigha), 485 (74.11 bigha) and 490 (36.01 bigha) of Jodhpur Rural stand recorded in the revenue records (Jamabandi) in the name of the concerned revenue authority — that is, as municipal/government land. Mutation for Khasra No. 490 was recorded as recently as 12th March 2016, and while the land’s stated nature is “Kabristan” (graveyard), the area in fact comprises dense residential and commercial localities.
- Despite this, all or substantial portions of these Khasras have been entered in the Waqf Gazette and uploaded onto the Umeed Portal as Waqf property. The properties reportedly covered by these entries include several schools and colleges, temples, community halls, residential and commercial properties, and notably:
- The official bungalows of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur (a sitting Judge of the Rajasthan High Court) and Justice Prakash (a former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and former Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court);
- Geeta Bhawan, described as a major religious institution of the Hindu community.
- The Court noted that these entries appear to have been made without appointment of a Mutawalli, which it observed would be contrary to the statutory scheme under the Waqf Act, 1995, and that the process of uploading, checking and approval at the Maker–Checker–Approver stages appeared to have been carried out “in a mechanical and opaque manner,” including data entry alleged to have taken place under the guise of “training” at the premises of a private educational society.
- The order also refers to Tunwarji ka Jhalra, a historical stepwell built roughly 250 years ago during the reign of Maharaja Abhay Singh Rathore, which the material suggests was recorded in Waqf records as far back as 1965 as being for a specific religious purpose, without any contemporaneous dedication being shown.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Bench grounded its order in foundational constitutional principles rather than making any final findings on title:
- Rule of law and Articles 14 and 300-A: The legal character, ownership, or classification of property cannot be created, altered, or extinguished by a mere administrative entry, declaration, or digital record unsupported by lawful authority and due process.
- Secularism and Article 25: While Article 25 protects the freedom of religion, the constitutional scheme neither permits the State to confer proprietary character on property merely on a religious claim, nor allows a lawful religious endowment to be disturbed except in accordance with law. Questions about the character of religious property must be resolved through the procedure prescribed by applicable law, on material capable of sustaining such a determination.
- Sanctity of public records: Where different public records attribute fundamentally inconsistent legal character to the same property — such as land recorded in the name of a local authority also appearing as a religious endowment — that inconsistency cannot be allowed to persist without scrutiny of the authority, procedure, and material behind such entries.
- The Court was careful to note that any entry made without adherence to the statutory requirements of the Waqf Act, 1995 — including Sections 36, 40 and 54 — or without notice and opportunity to the recorded owner or other affected persons where required by law, would raise serious concerns of arbitrariness, procedural illegality, and deprivation of property otherwise than by authority of law, engaging Articles 14, 25 and 300-A.
Emphasising that the issue extended beyond individual title disputes to the sanctity and reliability of public records and the integrity of the Waqf Gazette/Umeed Portal entry process, the Court held the matter to be one of substantial public importance warranting examination on the basis of original official records.
Registration as PIL and Directions Issued
The Court directed the Registry to register the proceedings as a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, titled against the Union of India (Ministry of Minority Affairs), the State of Rajasthan (Department of Minority Affairs and Waqf), the District Collector, Jodhpur, and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Notice was issued to and accepted by counsel for all four respondents.
Without expressing any opinion on the rights, title, or character of the properties at this stage, the Court issued the following key directions:
- Status quo to be maintained on the ownership and legal status of properties within Khasra Nos. 482, 485 and 490, as well as the other properties named in the news report — no mutation, transfer, lease, licence, construction, demolition, or other status-altering action to be taken based on the entries under challenge.
- The District Collector, Jodhpur to preserve existing revenue records and place authenticated copies of the current Jamabandi, Record of Rights, mutation registers and revenue maps before the Court, along with a physical verification report (with photographs and GPS particulars) on the existing nature and use of the three Khasras.
- The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf to produce the complete original record relating to how these properties came to be included in the Waqf Gazette and uploaded on the Umeed Portal, and to file an affidavit explaining the statutory basis and procedure followed, including the position on appointment of a Mutawalli.
- The District Minority Welfare Officer, Jodhpur to file an affidavit on the factual circumstances of the data-entry exercise said to have been conducted at the premises of the Marwar Muslim Educational Society, including the nature and purpose of any training programme connected with it.
- All concerned authorities to preserve relevant original physical and electronic records until further orders.
The Court appointed Mr. Moti Singh and Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Advocates, as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter, directed that the newspaper report be treated as part of the record, and listed the matter for further hearing on 11th August 2026.
Key Takeaways
- This is a suo motu PIL, initiated by the Court itself on the basis of investigative journalism rather than a petition filed by an aggrieved party — illustrating the High Court’s willingness to act proactively where public records reveal serious inconsistencies.
- The Court has not made any final determination on whether the properties in question are validly Waqf assets; the order is confined to preserving the status quo and calling for records while the matter is examined.
- The case squarely raises the interplay between revenue law, the Waqf Act, 1995, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 25 and 300-A — particularly the statutory safeguards (such as Sections 36, 40 and 54 of the Waqf Act) that must be observed before a property’s legal character can be altered.
- The involvement of judicial residences and a well-known religious institution among the properties in question has amplified the public interest dimension of the case.
- The matter is at an early, information-gathering stage, with authorities directed to produce records and affidavits ahead of the next hearing on 11th August 2026.
Conclusion
This order reflects the High Court’s approach of treating credible reports of irregularities in public land records — irrespective of who is affected, from ordinary residents to sitting judges — as matters warranting judicial scrutiny in the public interest. With status quo directions in place and a battery of official records and affidavits due before the next hearing, the case will be closely watched as it develops, both for its implications on the specific properties involved and for the broader questions it raises about the integrity of the Waqf registration process.
CASE DETAILS: Suo Motu: In Re – Illegal Registration of Municipal Properties (incl. Judges’ Bungalows, Geeta Bhawan, Schools, Colleges & Temples as well as Khasra 482/485/490) as Waqf Assets in Jodhpur High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur | Order dated 27th July 2026 | Bench: Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar
Click HERE for full JUDGMENT.
