Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Oct 26 MCQs & solutions Free

Option (a) is incorrect as the 2025 amendment specifically abolishes the concept of “Waqf by use.” Under the new law, longstanding religious use alone is not sufficient to confer Waqf status on unregistered land. Option (b) is correct as The 2025 Act restricts the recognition of Waqf properties to those that are already registered as Waqf. The concept of “Waqf by use” has been abolished. Option (c) is incorrect because Article 26 protects the right to manage religious affairs, but the legal recognition of land as Waqf properly is governed by statutory law. The 2025 Act requires registration, and mere use for religious purposes does not automatically confer Waqf status under the amended law. Option (d) is incorrect as per the passage because only properties previously registered as Waqf by Use can be treated as Waqf. There is no provision that says the Central Waqf Board can simply declare land as Waqf based on its own findings or assessments.

Option (a) is incorrect as the 2025 amendment does not make the collector’s identification final and absolute. The status of the land as Waqf is suspended until a court resolves the dispute. The Waqf Board’s decision of considering the land as Waqf properly is not permanently extinguished but is put on hold pending judicial determination. Option (b) is correct as under the 2025 Act, when the district collector identifies land as government property, the land ceases to be treated as Waqf until a court adjudicates the dispute even if the land was recognised as waqf by use by the Waqf Board. This weakens the Waqf Board’s position but does not permanently bar its claim. Option (c) is incorrect as once the collector identifies the land as government properly, the Waqf Board’s decision of recognising the properly as waqf by use before the enactment of the Act is suspended, not strengthened. Option (d) is incorrect. The collector’s identification and the Waqf Board’s decision are directly in conflict. The law specifically provides that the land will not be treated as Waqf property once identified as government land by the collector, until the dispute is resolved by a court. Their claims cannot coexist without affecting each other’s operation.

Option (a) is incorrect. While Article 26 does give grounds to restrict the right, it is not absolute or broad in manner suggested by the facts of the question. The grounds of restriction of right is only public order, morality, and health. Hence giving power to the committee to reject the registration on grounds it deem fit will be arbitraiy and not in line with the article. Option (b) is correct as Article 26(b) guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, subject only to public order, morality, and health. A government committee with broad, subjective grounds for rejection creates the risk of arbitraiy interference. Option (c) is incorrect as the interference of a committee on vague grounds in the management of a religious community’s affairs is violative per se even if its actions are subject to review. Option (d) is incorrect as it merely provides the facts stated in the question. It does not provide any legal reason.

Option (a) is incorrect. This was the position under the earlier Waqf Act, 1995, but the 2025 amendment specifically removed this exemption. The Limitation Act now applies to Waqf property claims. Option (b) is correct as the 2025 amendment makes the Limitation Act applicable to Waqf property claims, meaning that delayed suits—those filed after the limitation period—must be dismissed by the court. Option (c) is incorrect as there is no mention of a provision distinguishing between encroachments before and after the amendment. The amendment has made the limitation law applicable with respect to waqf property as well. Option (d) is incorrect as the amended law as provided in the passage does not provide for any special judicial discretion to condone delay in Waqf property recovery suits based on the religious nature of the property.

Statement 1 is reasonably inferred from the law’s requirement for prior registration and the abolition of waqf by use by the 2025 Act. Statement 2 is incorrect as the discussion about Article 26 in the passage mentions nothing about the requirement of non-community members. Further the petition has asserted that inclusion of non- Muslims would hamper article 26. Statement 3 is reasonably inferred from the imposition of limitation periods on recovery actions post the 2025 Amendment Act.

Statement 1 is reasonably inferred from the passage’s explanation that only registered properties are recognized as waqf, making the status of unregistered but long- used properties unclear. Statement 2 is not supported by the passage. While the collector’s identification suspends the waqf status, the passage does not state that religious activities must cease during this period. Statement 3 is a reasonable inference, as a limitation period would encourage timely action by waqf boards to avoid losing the right to recover property.