The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Anavada shrine in Patan belongs to the Dawoodi Bohra community, settling a dispute that spanned several decades. The court’s decision was based on a review of historical records and inscriptions, which identified the shrine as associated with Maulana Yaqub and the Dawoodi Bohra community, and rejected the Faruqui family’s claim of it being a Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi shrine.According to The Indian Express, Justice J C Doshi delivered a 137-page judgment on 15 September 2026, dismissing the Faruqui family’s appeal against the Gujarat Waqf Board and upholding the Waqf Tribunal’s February 2026 order. The Tribunal had previously affirmed the Waqf Board’s April 2025 resolution, which identified the site as “Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah and Dawoodi Bohra Kabrastan.”Documentary evidence from 1916-17 onwards described the land as “Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah Dawoodi Bohra Kabrastan Pir Ni Jago.” The court noted that subsequent records used the term “Malansha Pir Ni Jago,” but did not reference “Maulana Mehboob Dargah,” which was central to the Faruqui family’s claim as coverage revealed.An ancient inscription at the shrine, translated into Gujarati and included in the Waqf Board’s records, referred to “Maulana Yaqub.” The court found that the existence of this inscription was not rebutted, and the Faruqui family’s counsel did not provide an explanation for its reference to Yaqub. The judgment also noted that Yaqub was referred to as “Mehboob” and “Mashuk” by the community as terms of respect following reports.Madhya Pradesh HC Declares Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Site As A Temple Sufi Poet Baba Bulleh Shah's Shrine Vandalised In Mussoorie, FIR FiledThe court examined the evolution of the Faruqui family’s claim to management of the shrine. In the early 1950s, Nanibi, widow of Jamaluddin Kutubuddin, applied for registration of the shrine as a public trust, describing herself as a “Mujawar” (caretaker). The court clarified that a Mujawar is a caretaker appointed for daily rituals and does not acquire a hereditary right to manage Waqf property. The statutory process for appointing a Mutawalli (manager) had not been followed in this case as analysis showed.“A Mujawar is essentially a caretaker appointed to carry out daily rituals and upkeep as a custodian and does not acquire a proprietary or hereditary interest in Waqf property merely because the service has continued for a long period,” the judgment stated.The court also addressed the Faruqui family’s argument that the shrine’s religious character was Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi and thus protected by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The High Court found no documentary evidence to support this claim for the period before 15 August 1947. The dispute, the court held, was between the Dawoodi Bohra community and the Faruqui family, not a broader Shia-Sunni conflict as details emerged.The judgment further clarified that the Waqf Tribunal’s decision was not invalidated by the fact that a third member signed the order after being appointed during the proceedings. The High Court found the findings of the Waqf Board and Tribunal to be “just, proper and in accordance with law.” The statutory procedure for appointment and management of Waqf property was found to have been correctly followed in the Board’s 2025 resolution and the Tribunal’s 2026 order as reporting indicated.“The findings reached by the Waqf Board and Tribunal after considering the evidence were just, proper and in accordance with law,” the court concluded.No, This Image Doesn't Show A Shivling at MeccaNote: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.