Section 54 Wakf Act | Long Possession Confers No Right To Continue In Occupation If Encroachment Is Unauthorized: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"Merely being in possession of the premises for long time does not give any right to the petitioner to continue in possession of the accommodation, especially when it has been found by the Chief Executive Officer, H.P. Wakf Board, Shimla that he was in unauthorized occupation." High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in a ruling delivered on October 6, 2026, held that long-standing possession does not confer any legal right upon an occupant to resist eviction from Wakf property under the Wakf Act, 1995, if the occupation is unauthorized.

A Single Bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj observed that where an occupant fails to demonstrate lawful authorization or title documents executed by the Wakf Board, concurrent findings of eviction passed under Section 54(3) cannot be interfered with in revision, emphasizing that "merely being in possession of the premises for long time does not give any right to the petitioner to continue in possession of the accommodation."

The Chief Executive Officer of the Himachal Pradesh Wakf Board passed an eviction order on August 29, 2007, under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995, directing the petitioner to vacate an unauthorized one-room set situated at Jama Masjid, Middle Bazar, Shimla. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Judge, Shimla, acting as the Wakf Tribunal under Section 7 read with Section 83(2) of the Act, which dismissed the application on June 6, 2014, affirming the eviction. The petitioner subsequently instituted a writ petition and review proceedings, after which he approached the High Court through the instant civil revision petition.

The primary question before the court was whether uninterrupted possession of a Wakf property over a prolonged duration confers a legal right to resist summary eviction under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Wakf Act in interfering with concurrent findings of fact affirming unauthorized occupation in the absence of perversity or procedural illegality.

Admission Of Notice Precludes Challenge On Ground Of Defective Service

The court first addressed the petitioner's preliminary challenge that the initial eviction proceedings before the Chief Executive Officer were conducted without proper service of notice. The Bench noted that the records and the order of the Wakf Tribunal clearly evidenced a categorical admission by the petitioner that statutory proceedings had been initiated against him and that notices were served upon him as well as his family members.

Rejecting the plea of lack of notice, the court observed that once an explicit admission of service is documented on record, the plea of breach of natural justice collapses. The bench noted that "once the petitioner had made admission that the proceedings were initiated against him and he was duly served with a notice, which finds mention in the order passed by the learned District Judge, the said argument is without any merit and thus rejected."

Prolonged Possession Imparts No Equitable Or Legal Right Against Eviction

Turning to the substantive defence of long possession and financial hardship, the High Court held that uninterrupted physical stay on Wakf land, regardless of its duration, cannot ripen into a lawful title or defeat eviction proceedings initiated under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995. The Bench underscored that length of occupation is entirely immaterial once an individual is determined to be an encroacher or unauthorized occupant.

The court reiterated that absent any lease, grant, or document executed by the Wakf authorities, continuing in possession is patently unlawful. Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that "merely being in possession of the premises for long time does not give any right to the petitioner to continue in possession of the accommodation, especially when it has been found by the Chief Executive Officer, H.P. Wakf Board, Shimla that he was in unauthorized occupation."

Unrebutted Evidence In Section 54 Proceedings Fully Validates Eviction Order

Evaluating the petitioner's grievance that the Chief Executive Officer had passed an unreasoned and illegal order, the Bench observed that the petitioner failed to lead any rebuttal evidence despite having notice of the proceedings. The Chief Executive Officer had duly recorded the evidence presented by the Wakf Board establishing that the subject premises could not be utilized for unauthorized residential accommodation.

The court noted that since the evidence led by the statutory board remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the occupant, the CEO committed no error in directing the removal of the encroachment. When an occupant is unable to produce any lease or permission from the Wakf Board, an order of eviction passed under Section 54(3) remains fully justified and strictly within the statutory framework of the Wakf Act.

Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Concurrent Findings Absent Perversity

The High Court laid significant emphasis on the circumscribed limits of revisional jurisdiction when sitting over concurrent findings recorded by the statutory authorities and the Wakf Tribunal. The Bench observed that the learned District Judge had framed specific issues on ownership, status of the property, validity of the CEO's order, and compliance with statutory notice requirements, and answered them on the basis of evidence.

Emphasizing that concurrent factual findings cannot be casually upset in revision, the Bench held that where the authorities below acted strictly within their jurisdiction, the High Court would not re-examine or overturn such conclusions unless vitiated by gross perversity. The court observed that "this Court while exercising the revisional power, cannot alter the said findings, more especially when there is neither any perversity in the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer nor any illegality has been committed while passing the said order, which order has been affirmed by the learned District Judge."

Holding that long possession without underlying title or authorization confers no right to resist eviction from Wakf properties, the High Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the Chief Executive Officer and the Wakf Tribunal and dismissed the revision petition. The ruling establishes that in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error, the High Court will not exercise its revisional powers to protect unauthorized occupants facing statutory eviction under Section 54 of the Wakf Act.

Date of Decision: 06th October, 2026