The petitioner, represented by its President Haji Shakir Dost Mohammad, invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing for the protection of Waqf property at Khasra No. 11, Motia Khan. The property is a historical site with religious significance, reportedly capable of accommodating up to 50,000 worshippers at once.

The Committee contended that on August 29, 2024, construction equipment was seen on the site, indicating attempts by the DDA and MCD to encroach on the Idgah Park for the proposed statue installation. The petitioner submitted a representation to object to these developments, which prompted involvement from the Delhi Minority Commission, leading to a status quo order due to concerns over potential public unrest.

Despite the urgency of the situation, a response from the DDA was notably absent. The Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) filed a short affidavit confirming the dimensions of the Shahi Idgah, which had been claimed as extending beyond the demarcated area, thus complicating the legal landscape.

Counsel for the petitioner argued against the DWB’s affidavit, stating that previous submissions had indicated a larger area under the control of the Waqf Board. They claimed that the property had been used continuously for religious activities since the Mughal era, and there were no grounds for the DDA's claims of ownership over surrounding lands.

Upon examining the facts, the court found that the Shahi Idgah is distinctly separate from the adjoining park areas, which are under DDA jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner’s claims about the property boundaries were unsupported by concrete evidence, emphasizing that the DDA has been responsible for maintaining the parks surrounding the Shahi Idgah.

Moreover, the court referenced a previous ruling where it affirmed that the parks are meant for public recreational use and that the DWB has not authorized any other use for these lands beyond religious activities.

The court ultimately concluded that the petition lacked legal standing and dismissed it on grounds of insufficient cause of action. The ruling reinforces the authority of the DDA over the surrounding public areas, while also clarifying the limitations of the Waqf Board's claims.

This decision not only highlights the complexities of property rights surrounding historical sites but also sets a precedent regarding the responsibilities of civic authorities in managing public spaces adjacent to places of worship. As the issue continues to stir public interest, it raises vital questions about the balance between historical preservation and urban development in one of India's most densely populated cities.