ED searches Ahmedabad sites in alleged Waqf rent-diversion case

What the Record Shows

The Directorate of Enforcement has registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and, on 6 May 2025, searched 10 locations in Ahmedabad as part of an investigation into the alleged diversion of rent from Waqf-owned properties, according to Prasar Bharati's news service. The ED action rests on a predicate first information report registered by the Gaekwad Haveli police in Ahmedabad.

Per the agency account, the persons under investigation allegedly held themselves out as trustees of the Gujarat State Waqf Board and, on that basis, collected rent from properties associated with the Board, including the historic Kaanch Ni Masjid, the Glass Mosque, and the Shah Bada Qasam Trust in the Jamalpur area of Ahmedabad. The police case is that the accused "were never officially appointed as trustees by the Gujarat State Waqf Board".

The figure attached to the alleged diversion is about Rs 100 crore. That is an investigative estimate and has not been tested before a court. The ED names Salim Jummakhan Pathan and associates as the accused. The matter is at the search-and-investigation stage: no chargesheet or prosecution complaint has been reported, no denial is recorded in the agency account, and no court has made any finding of guilt.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the ED and the Ahmedabad police allege it, turned on an assumed office. The accused are alleged to have presented themselves as authorised trustees or representatives of the Gujarat State Waqf Board, a statutory body that administers Muslim religious and charitable endowments, and to have used that claimed status to collect rent from tenants of Waqf-estate properties in Jamalpur. Alongside the two named religious endowments, the properties are said to include commercial establishments on land connected to a municipal lease. Rent that should have reached the Waqf estate was, on the allegation, diverted instead.

The procedural route explains why two agencies are involved. The predicate offence sits in the FIR registered by the Gaekwad Haveli police, which concerns the alleged impersonation and wrongful collection of rent. On the strength of that FIR, the ED opened its own money-laundering investigation, which looks at whether rent collected in this way amounts to proceeds of crime and where that money went. The searches of 6 May 2025 at 10 locations are a search-stage step under the PMLA; they are a means of gathering material, not a finding against anyone.

What the investigation has not yet produced, on the public record, is a prosecution complaint, an attachment of assets, or any judicial determination. Each of those would be a later stage, and none has been reported as of the latest available record.

Who Lost Money

The party said to have lost is the Waqf estate itself and, through it, the religious and charitable purposes the endowment is meant to fund. Where rent from endowment property is diverted, the beneficiaries of that endowment are the ones ultimately short-changed, on the allegation.

A second set of affected people are the tenants. On the police case, they paid rent in good faith to persons who, the police say, had no authority to collect it, which can leave a tenant exposed to a fresh demand from the rightful administrator for the same period.

The Rs 100 crore figure is the headline number, but it is an estimate by the investigating agencies rather than an audited or judicially established loss. No recovery, restitution or attachment has been confirmed on the public record. What was actually diverted, and over what period, is precisely what the investigation is set up to determine.

Where It Stands Now

As of the latest available record, the matter remains at the investigation stage. The ED has conducted its searches and is pursuing a money-laundering investigation on the predicate FIR held by the Gaekwad Haveli police. No prosecution complaint has been reported, and no court order in the matter could be located on the public case databases.

Because the matter is pre-conviction, the presumption of innocence applies in full. An FIR, an ED search, and the allegations that accompany them are accusations, not findings of guilt; the persons named are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

It is worth being precise about scope. The case, on the record, is about the alleged conduct of specific named individuals in collecting rent under a claimed trustee status. It is not a finding about the Gujarat State Waqf Board or about Waqf institutions generally, and it should not be read as one.

What It Means

The pattern in this matter is a familiar one wherever property is held for a community rather than an individual: the person collecting the rent and the person entitled to it can drift apart, and a tenant paying monthly rarely has an easy way to check which is which. Endowment and trust property is especially exposed because the chain of authority runs through appointment records that tenants seldom see.

The protective point is a practical one for anyone renting endowment or trust property. It is worth confirming, with the relevant State Waqf Board or trust authority, who the currently authorised trustee or mutawalli is before paying rent, asking for a receipt in the name of the endowment rather than an individual, and keeping a record of payments. For institutions, published trustee lists and rent registers are the basic defence. Readers can follow other religious-endowment and institutional matters in the Oquilia enforcement archive, including a Kerala SIT investigation into temple gold and a hospital case in which the NHRC found irregularities and ordered relief. As with any ED search, what the agency alleges here remains an allegation until it is tested and, if charged, proven in court.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. The case is at the investigation stage. An FIR and an ED search, and the allegations that accompany them, are accusations, not findings of guilt; the persons named are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. No court has recorded any finding against them.

What is the ED investigating?

According to Prasar Bharati's news service, the ED is investigating the alleged diversion of rent from Gujarat Waqf properties by persons who allegedly posed as Waqf Board trustees. It registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on a predicate FIR by the Gaekwad Haveli police and searched 10 locations in Ahmedabad on 6 May 2025. The Rs 100 crore figure is an investigative estimate.

What does an ED search under PMLA actually mean?

A search under the PMLA is an investigation-stage step to gather material about suspected proceeds of crime. It is not an arrest, an attachment of assets, or a conviction, and it decides nothing about guilt. Later stages, such as a prosecution complaint or attachment, would each require their own basis and have not been reported here.

Does this reflect on Waqf institutions generally?

No. The case, on the record, concerns the alleged conduct of specific named individuals who are said to have collected rent under a claimed trustee status they did not hold. It is not a finding about the Gujarat State Waqf Board or about Waqf institutions as such.

How can a tenant check who is entitled to collect rent?

Ask the relevant State Waqf Board or trust authority to confirm the currently authorised trustee or mutawalli, insist on a receipt issued in the name of the endowment rather than an individual, and keep records of every payment. Where the authority is unclear, it is reasonable to seek written confirmation before paying.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED action was reported by Prasar Bharati's news service on newsonair.gov.in.

This report is based on the Prasar Bharati news report of 6 May 2025 on the ED searches in Ahmedabad and the predicate FIR of the Gaekwad Haveli police, reviewed on 4 August 2026.