Committee of management Waqf No 2,9,29-41,61,135,136,139 v. U.P.Sunni central Waqf Bord and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024CLRE/85/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision concerning recognition of a committee of management for public waqfs and a Tribunal order under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act setting aside an earlier notice. Interim order only; counter affidavits permitted and parties directed to maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Status quo as on date to be maintained by parties until further orders; four weeks for counter affidavit and two weeks for rejoinder.

Committee of management Waqf No… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 85 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Committee Of Management Waqf No 2,9,2941,61,135,136,139 Opposite Party :- U.P.Sunni Central Waqf Bord And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Punit Kumar Gupta,Syed Irfan Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Syed Irfan Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there is a public waqf numbered as 2, 9, 29-41, 61, 135, 136, 139 and others, which is managed by committee of management through Secretary- Siraj Bahadur. Respondent no. 4 has constituted a committee of management and sent letter dated 14.07.2021 for recognition of the same in the Waqf Board upon which Law Officer of the Waqf Board has submitted a report dated 18.10.2021. Taking cognizance of the report, respondent no. 1 has issued notice dated 07.12.2021 under Section 67(2) of the Waqf Act to the revisionist, which was duly replied by the revisionist and ultimately considering the reply, earlier notice dated 07.12.2021 has been withdrawn with certain directions. Now, respondent no. 4 has challenged the said notice before Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act and the said application was allowed setting aside the order dated 12.12.2022.

¶7

Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned senior counsel has assailed the order on the grounds that there is no dispute that earlier committee was managing all affairs of public waqf till the filing of application dated 27.7.2021 and without expiry of term or removal of earlier committee, no fresh committee of management may be recognized. Therefore, such committee of management itself is bad in law. He next submitted that as per Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, any mutawalli or person interested in a waqf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act. In the present case, neither respondent no. 4 is mutawalli nor a person interested or aggrieved for the reason it has been filed on behalf of a committee of management, which is void ab initio and non existent. He next submitted that in case of any proceeding

¶8

initiated under Section 67 (2) of the Waqf Act, there is provision of appeal under Section 67(4) of the Waqf Act in case of removal of committee of management but, here the committee has not been removed. Therefore, no appeal lie under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act against an order passed under Section 67(2) of the Waqf Act. He further submitted that Section 83 of the Waqf Act provides the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property under this Act and here it has nothing to do with the constitution of committee of management or its recognition by the Board. Therefore, in all eventuality, order is bad and liable to be set aside.

¶9

Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has supported the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶10

Sri Syed Irfan Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has vehemently opposed and submitted that revisionist comes under the category of a person interested in a Waqf, therefore, he may file appeal, but he could not dispute the fact that at the time of constitution of committee of management i.e. respondent no. 4, term of earlier committee was neither completed nor committee was dissolved by any order passed under this Act.

¶11

Matter requires consideration.

¶12

Sri Syed Irfan Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 submitted that he is having instruction from respondent no. 5, therefore, there is no need to issue notice to respondent no. 5.

¶13

All respondents pray for and are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶14

9. List this case on 18.09.2024.

¶15

Until further order of this Court, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Arvind

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of management Waqf No 2,9,29-41,61,135,136,139 v. U.P.Sunni central Waqf Bord and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of management Waqf No 2,9,29-41,61,135,136,139 v. U.P.Sunni central Waqf Bord and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Vijay Nandani vs State of Up and 2 Others

Chiranji Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Riyazuddin Qureshi vs State of Up and 3 Others

Prem Narayan and Another vs State of Up and 7 Others

M/S Precious Hospitality and Leisure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others