Waqf Board sources say the land is registered and approved on the UMEED portal; demands grow for preservation of all related records
HYDERABAD — Fresh questions have emerged over the auction of a valuable parcel of land belonging to Jamia Nizamia, one of the oldest Islamic seminaries of higher learning in Hyderabad. Waqf Board sources stated that the property had already been recorded and approved as a Waqf asset on the Central Government’s UMEED portal before being sold through a public auction.
The controversy centres on land located in Survey No. 83/1 at Raidurg in Hyderabad, which, according to sources associated with the Telangana Waqf Board and Jamia Nizamia, is a notified Waqf property. The issue has gained attention amid calls for all records relating to the property to be immediately secured and preserved.
According to information available with Waqf Board sources, the land was uploaded to the UMEED portal after verification of relevant documents, entries in the Book of Waqf records and other supporting material. The property was subsequently approved on the portal after scrutiny by officials responsible for verification and authentication.
Sources claim that once the property received approved status on the UMEED portal, it was assigned a unique identification number, TS0518E14RR22DA001, thereby recognising it as a verified Waqf property under the portal’s system.
The matter has become more contentious because government agencies later auctioned the land. Critics claim that the auction was conducted despite repeated representations informing authorities that the property belonged to Jamia Nizamia and that related legal proceedings were pending before the courts.
According to documents and claims made by individuals associated with the institution, representatives of Jamia Nizamia met officials after the auction notification was issued by the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. They reportedly submitted written representations asserting that the land was dedicated as Waqf property and that litigation concerning the land remained pending before the courts.
Sources familiar with the matter said representations were also made before the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar. Despite these objections, the auction process went ahead.
The land is reported to have fetched approximately ₹237 crore per acre, making it one of the most valuable parcels of land involved in a Waqf-related dispute in recent years.
Legal experts following the matter argue that the central question is whether a property recognised and approved as Waqf land on the UMEED portal could legally be auctioned without resolving the claims and objections attached to it.
Several experts have suggested that if the land was indeed a valid and verified Waqf property, questions would arise regarding compliance with Waqf laws and procedures governing such assets.
The issue has also garnered attention due to the role played by the UMEED portal. The portal was introduced under the Ministry of Minority Affairs as a digital platform for recording and managing Waqf properties across the country.
Supporters of the registration process argue that Muslim organisations and Waqf institutions were assured that properties recorded and verified on the portal would receive formal recognition and protection as Waqf assets.
Following those assurances, several organisations that had initially expressed reservations about the portal later encouraged the registration of Waqf properties. As part of that exercise, Jamia Nizamia’s land was also reportedly entered into the system and approved after verification.
The auction of a property carrying approved status on the portal raises serious legal and administrative questions.
Sources within the Waqf administration have also expressed concern over the growing pressure on officials. According to these sources, attempts are allegedly being made to shift responsibility for the dispute onto Jamia Nizamia rather than examining the legality of the auction itself.
They claim that there is concern among community members that responsibility for the loss of the land could be attributed to procedural or legal disputes involving the institution, while larger questions regarding the auction process remain unanswered.
The Minority Welfare Department and other concerned authorities have so far maintained silence on the controversy, according to those raising objections. No detailed public response has yet been issued regarding the allegations or the legal status of the land.
Legal experts insist that all files, correspondence, survey records, Waqf notifications, court documents and UMEED portal records connected with the property should be preserved immediately to ensure that evidence remains available for any future legal proceedings.
They further argue that, if violations are established, authorities could explore legal remedies available under the amended Waqf laws and other relevant statutes.
The dispute has once again highlighted the wider debate over the protection of Waqf properties, the role of digital registration systems and the responsibility of government agencies when dealing with land claimed to belong to religious and charitable institutions.
As the controversy continues, attention is likely to remain focused on whether the concerned authorities initiate legal action, release official records or provide a detailed explanation regarding the circumstances under which the land was auctioned despite objections and claims of Waqf ownership.
