In the early hours of April 4, 2025, India passed the historic Waqf Amendment Bill (2024) in the Rajya Sabha. Before its passage in the upper house, the Lok Sabha witnessed a fiery debate on April 2, continuing into the midnight hours of April 3. During the debate, BJP MP Anurag Thakur launched a scathing attack on the Waqf Board, accusing it of claiming lands without rightful ownership. Referring to the Board’s claim on Bet Dwarka, Thakur asked sharply: “Bet Dwarka par Waqf Board apna daawa thok raha hai—Bhagwan Krishna se pehle Islam aa gaya tha kya?” (The Waqf Board is staking claim on Bet Dwarka—did Islam come before Lord Krishna?)
After Thakur’s statement, Alt News co-founder Muhammad Zubair launched tirade of tweets and so-called “fact checks”. Zubair claimed that the Waqf Board had never declared Bet Dwarka as its property, and accused Thakur of misleading Parliament with a false statement.
Muhammad Zubair claimed, ‘Yesterday Anurag Thakur falsely claimed that Waqf Board had claimed Beyt Dwarka. This is false claim. Even BJP’s Jamnagar MP Poonamben Hematbhai had debunked the fake news 3 years ago saying “No such claim had been made by the Waqf Board and that she had officially verified through the Law Minister and the District Collector’ Even Gujarat Waqf Board condemned this false claim and clarified that they did not file any petition in the High Court regarding any land in ‘Beyt Dwarka’. The petition was about the Savai Pir Dargah, Shiyal Bet (Amreli), not Bet Dwarka filed by a private Sunni Trust, not Waqf Board.’
Muhammad Zubair’s organization Alt News published an article allegedly countering Anurag Thakur’s statement. As an argument, the article cited BJP leader and Gujarat Waqf Board President Sajjad Heera, who denied that the Waqf Board had laid any claim over Bet Dwarka land. Alt News also quoted BJP leader Poonam Madan to further dismiss the claim, suggesting that the Waqf Board had not staked ownership over any Bet Dwarka properties.
Additionally, Zubair mentioned that the Waqf Board had never claimed any land in Bet Dwarka citing Gujarat Waqf Board. The Waqf Board also clarified that the petition was about Savai Pir Dargah in Shiyal Bet, not Bet Dwarka, and was filed by a private Sunni Trust, not the Waqf Board.
Also Read: Claims of Fake ‘Modi-Modi’ Chants at Bangkok Airport Video is False
We began our report by closely examining the case details shared by Mohammad Zubair on the X platform. According to the case details present in Gujarat High Court website, the case is a Special Civil Application (Case No. 2374) filed in 2021 by Advocate Saquib S. Ansari on behalf of the petitioner—Savai Peer and Itar Peer Dargah Masjid Trust, Sialbet and others. Advocate Manish S. Shah is representing the Gujarat State Waqf Board in this case. The Dargah is located in Sialbet, Amreli district. As of now, the case is still pending in court.
Citing this case, Mohammad Zubair’s fact-checking website Alt News conducted a so-called fact-check. Zubair asserted that the Waqf Board never claimed any land in Bet Dwarka, referencing a 2021 Voice of India report in which Gujarat Waqf Board President Sajjad Hira stated they had not approached the court to claim any land in Bet Dwarka.
Alt News also quoted BJP MP Poonamben who stated that the Waqf Board had not gone to court over Bet Dwarka. Instead, a Masjid Trust had approached the court regarding two islands near Sialbet. According to her, confusion around Bet Dwarka likely arose due to the use of the word ‘Bet’ which led the Gujarat High Court vacation bench judge to question how the Waqf Board could claim land in ‘Krishnanagari.
It’s important to note that the Savai Peer and Itar Peer Dargah Masjid Trust had filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court alleging that authorities had blocked pilgrims from visiting Sawai Bet Island near Sialbet, citing national security concerns. The Trust also accused officials of permitting a temple to be built on the Dargah’s land, thereby encroaching on Waqf property.
Note: Key details for readers to remember
| Case Filing Number | 2374 |
| Case Filing Year | 2021 |
| Status | Pending |
| Petitioners Advocate | Saquib S Ansari |
| Gujarat State Waqf Board Advocate | Manish Shah |
| Judge | Vipul M Pancholi, Sangeeta K Vishen, Vaibhavi D Nanavati, A. S. Supehia, Nirza S Desai, Aniruddha P Mayee |
| Reason stated in petition by Petitioner against Government action | Authorities banned pilgrims from visiting the Sawai Bet and Sialbet islands and allowed the construction of a temple on Dargah land. |
To verify whether the Waqf Board ever claimed land in Bet Dwarka, we began our fact-checking by researching on the matter. During our search we came across a report by PTI which shed light on a relevant case. According to the report, the Bet Bhadela Muslim Jamat a trust representing the Muslim community in Bet village had approached the Gujarat High Court.
We then found both the petition and the judgment related to this case on the Gujarat High Court’s official website. The petitions concerning the three pieces of land were filed on December 24, 2024 and January 4, 2025, by Advocate Rizwan Sheikh on behalf of the petitioner, Bet Bhadela Muslim Jamat, represented through its President, Kadarbhai Abhubhai Malek. In this case, Advocate Manish Shah represented the Gujarat State Waqf Board. The disputed Dargahs and Qabristan (graveyard) are located in Bet Dwarka, in the Dwarka district.
They filed the petition in response to notices issued by the Okha Nagarpalika (local municipal authority), which ordered the removal of illegal structures on three land pieces- Survey No. 105, Survey No. 386, and Survey No. 526. These lands, situated in Bet village on Bet Dwarka island, had been used as a Qabrastan (Muslim graveyard) and housed religious sites such as the Haji Kirmani Dargah and the Shaikhpir Dargah.
| Case Filing Number | 960 |
| Case Filing Year | 2025 |
| Status | Disposed |
| Petitioners Advocate | Rizwan Sheikh |
| Gujarat State Waqf Board Advocate | Manish Shah |
| Judge | Mauna M Bhatt |
| Reason stated in petition by Petitioner against Government action | Removal of structure on three land pieces |
The trust argued that the land was Waqf property, meaning it was legally meant for Muslim religious use and protected under the Waqf Act. They showed old documents like 7/12 extracts and entries from the 1960s that listed the land as a graveyard (Qabrastan). They also said their trust had been managing the site since 1953 and was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, later recognized under the Waqf Act in 1995. So, they believed the demolition notices for structures like a madrassa (religious school) or fencing were illegal because the land belonged to them, not the government.
But the Gujarat government disagreed. On February 4, 2025, the Gujarat High Court, led by Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, dismissed the trust’s petitions. The state said the land was government property either state-owned or grazing (Gauchar) land and not Waqf. They referred to 1984 and 1989 rules that say land used as a graveyard stays with the government and can’t be handed over to any trust or Waqf. The government also said the trust built illegal structures, like large, air-conditioned buildings, which are not allowed on graveyard land. The court agreed with the state, and soon after, bulldozers removed 12 illegal structures in Bet Dwarka’s Balapar village as part of a cleanup drive.
The trust’s claim failed for a few reasons. First, the government showed that old records never listed the land as Waqf only as land meant for specific use like a graveyard, still under government control. Second, the Waqf Act says land becomes Waqf only if a Muslim permanently donates it for religious or charitable use. In this case, there was no clear proof of such a donation. The trust only claimed long-term use, known as ‘Waqf by user,’ which the court didn’t accept without strong evidence. Third, the 1989 rules ban any construction on graveyard land beyond basic fencing—and only with permission, which the trust didn’t have. Building madrassas or Dargah structures without approval made their claim weak.
After hearing arguments from both the petitioner (the Jamat) and the respondent (the Gujarat Government), the Gujarat High Court disposed of the case on February 4, 2025.
Conclusion: From the detailed examination of both cases, it is clear that they are entirely separate matters involving different locations, years, and petitioners. The case cited by Mohammad Zubair pertains to a 2021 petition filed by Advocate Saquib Ansari on behalf of the Savai Peer and Itar Peer Dargah Masjid Trust in Sialbet, located in Amreli district. This case has nothing to do with Bet Dwarka.
On the other hand, land encroachment of land in Bet Dwarka is a completely different case, which wad filed in December 2024 and January 2025 by Advocate Rizwan Sheikh on behalf of the Bet Bhadela Muslim Jamat. This case involved land in Bet Dwarka, Dwarka district, and was disposed of by the Gujarat High Court within a month. The petitioners had challenged demolition notices and claimed that the disputed land was Waqf property, but the court ultimately ruled in favor of the state government, stating the land was government-owned.
Zubair, through Alt News, misled readers by presenting the Sialbet case as proof that any land in Bet Dwarka was never claimed as Waqf property. In doing so, he ignored the 2025 Bet Dwarka case entirely despite clear legal records showing that a Muslim trust did claim land in Bet Dwarka, and the matter was heard and decided by the High Court. By selectively referencing an unrelated case, Zubair created a misleading narrative to counter Anurag Thakur’s statement, thereby misleading the public about the facts.
Also Read: Former IPS Rakesh Asthana Did Not Transfer ₹20 Crore to BJP for Elections
This website uses cookies.