Surat Municipal Corporation’s headquarters renamed as “Tapi Bhavan”: Read how it was declared a waqf property in 2021

The Surat Municipal Corporation’s term, which started in March 2021, has come to an end. Its last meeting occurred on 10th March (Tuesday), where Mayor Daxesh Mavani put forth several key proposals that were later unanimously accepted. One such recommendation involved renaming the headquarters of the corporation. The building, known as “Mughalsarai,” would now be referred to as “Tapi Bhavan.” It is situated in the “Mughalisara” area, which has also been renamed to “Shri Tapipura.” 'મુઘલસરાઈ' નહીં 'તાપીભવન' તરીકે ઓળખાશે સુરત મનપાનું મુખ્યાલય, વિસ્તાર હવે 'શ્રી તાપીપુરા'સુરત મ્યુનિસિપલ કોર્પોરેશનની (SMC) વર્તમાન ચૂંટાયેલી સંસ્થાની છેલ્લી સામાન્ય બેઠક મંગળવારે (10 માર્ચ) યોજાઈ હતી. સત્તાપક્ષ અને વિપક્ષના કોર્પોરેટરો વચ્ચે તીવ્ર ચર્ચા અને નારેબાજી વચ્ચે… pic.twitter.com/UYLa6c8kzM— ઑપઇન્ડિયા (@OpIndia_G) March 10, 2026 Notably, suggestions for the renaming had been submitted for almost 7 years. However, Mavani introduced a resolution from the chair, indicating that Surat’s prosperity originated not from the Mughal era, but from an earlier time, attributing its existence to the Tapi River at the latest general meeting. The river also contributed to the growth of industries, leading to the cities along its banks becoming renowned worldwide. Subsequently, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members promoted the resolution, and it was approved by all. Slogans celebrating Sanatan Dharma were also raised in the house. On the other hand, the Indian National Congress, which lacks any representatives in the corporation, is staging a protest. Its leader, Aslam Cyclewala, called the decision a “stunt” on social media, arguing that renaming the neighbourhood, historically identified as “Mughalisara” since the period of the Mughals, without engaging residents, was an unwarranted action. Attempt to seize the building by declaring it a Waqf property It is important to highlight that in 2021, efforts were made to appropriate the corporation’s headquarters by declaring it as a Waqf property. Nevertheless, the municipal officials brought the issue before the tribunal, which ultimately reversed the directive. In 2016, a request was made to change the name of the structure to “Humayunsarai.” It was submitted by a local, Abdullah Jarullah, who cited section 36 of the Waqf Act in his pursuit to have the building labelled as Waqf Board property. In 2021, a ruling was partially granted in favour of the applicant, which resulted in its registration as Waqf property. Additionally, the development empowered the Gujarat State Waqf Board to manage the building, instead of it being under the corporation’s control. The submission alleged that the place was constructed during Shah Jahan’s rule and was part of his daughter Jahanara Begum’s estate. It was erected in 1644 by his trusted associate, Ishaq Beg Yazdi alias Haqiqat Khan, at an expense of ₹33,081. The building was then named “Humayunsarai” and was allocated for Hajj pilgrims, as Surat served as a significant port and saw a considerable influx of pilgrims. The applicant provided 17 different documents and contended that the four-century-old edifice was utilised for accommodating Hajj pilgrims until 1867. In 1961, the British transformed it into a municipal office, and eventually, it became the primary office of the Surat Municipal Corporation. Later, the Waqf Board sanctioned the plea and instructed the classification of the office as Waqf property. However, the corporation approached the Waqf Tribunal and contested the move. The tribunal overturned the order The tribunal annulled the order in April 2024, deeming it arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful. It highlighted that the order issued by the board to define the building as “Humayunsarai Waqf Property” was illegal, noting that there was no structure by that name in Ward Number 11 of Surat City, and the property listed under City Survey Number 1504 had never been referred to as “Humayunsarai” previously. The tribunal indicated that an unjust, unauthorised and unilateral effort was made to incorporate the property into government records as “Humayunsarai” without confirming the veracity and legitimacy of the application. The order additionally referenced historical evidence pointing out that the construction of the building was funded by port taxes and revenue, rather than the personal income of Shah Jahan or Ishaq Beg. Consequently, this did not meet the criteria for self-acquired property by Mughal rulers and cannot be named as a Waqf. A Muslim individual is permitted to waqf his self-acquired property; however, property obtained from state income derived from port taxes and revenue cannot be designated as the same. After considering all relevant facts and information, the tribunal determined that the order issued by the Gujarat State Waqf Board on 25th November 2021, which registered the property at City Survey Number 1504, Ward Number 11, Surat City, as the “Humayunsarai Waqf property,” was illicit, inconsistent with established judicial principles, incorrect and capricious, and therefore was dismissed in the interest of justice. Moreover, the tribunal highlighted several procedural shortcomings. For instance, Abdullah had only provided photocopies of documents rather than certified copies, and according to the Evidence Act, photocopies are inadmissible. Nonetheless, the order claimed that the applicant had provided certified copies of the documents. Moreover, the inscriptions referenced in the application did not indicate a Mutawalli. The applicant had claimed to be the Mutawalli, but the tribunal observed that he had never truly served as the Mutawalli of the building. The board’s decision was eventually reversed in light of all these elements. The Modi government presented and enacted the Waqf Amendment Bill in Parliament last year, also resulting in extensive discussions over the matter.