Raees Ahmad and Another vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 539 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raees Ahmad And Another Respondent :- U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chairman And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Husain,Talha Syed Counsel for Respondent :- Farhan Habib,Adarsh Singh,C.S.C.,Farhan Ansari,Gaurav Mehrotra,Syed Aftab Ahmad

¶2

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶3

Affidavit of service filed by learned counsel for the petitioners today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

On 21.01.2025, we have passed the following order:-

¶6

"1. Heard.

¶7

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners alleging mismanagement/misuse/ misappropriation of waqf property by the private opposite parties in connivance with opposite parties no. 1 and 2.

¶8

3. Though there is a remedy under the Waqf Act, 1995 before the Tribunal, but, it is informed by Mr. Syed Hussain, counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal is not functional on account of nonavailability of the Judicial Member who has been transferred on 03.12.2024.

¶9

4. Let Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel and the counsel for the High Court, Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra seek instructions in the matter as to the vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal and what would be the time line to fill it up so that we are not flooded with writ petitions in the interregnum.

¶10

5. Counsel for the Waqf Board should seek instructions in the light of the allegations/averments made in the writ petition.

¶11

6. Mr. Noor Alam Khan, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Syed Aftab Ahmad says that he proposes to file vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 3 for which he requires two days' time.

¶12

7. List on 28.01.2025, as fresh, showing the names of CSC for the State, Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra for the High Court and Mr. Syed Aftab Ahmad for the opposite party no. 3 in the cause list.

¶13

8. Counsel for the petitioners shall provide a copy of this petition to

¶14

Mr. Manish Mishra, Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra to facilitate the aforesaid."

¶15

On 11.02.2025, we have passed the following order:-

¶16

"Heard.

¶17

Let Dasti notice be issued to the petitioners for service upon opposite parties no. 3 to 5 through the opposite party no. 2, meaning thereby, the dasti notice shall be served in the office of opposite party no. 2 who in turn shall ensure its service upon opposite parties no. 3 to 5 and file proof of service.

¶18

In the meantime, the opposite party no. 2 shall look into the allegations made in the writ petition as to how far they are permissible, especially, the agreement entered into between the opposite party no. 3 and opposite party no. 4/5, as it is not a registered agreement.

¶19

Shri Ahad, Advocate holding brief for Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the High Court has instructions to inform the Court that in pursuance to the recommendations of the State Government, question of sending a judicial officer on deputation to man the Waqf Tribunal is under consideration of the Administrative Committee. He should inform this Court on the next date as to whether any decision has been taken.

¶20

List/Put up this case on 17.03.2025.

¶21

It is made clear that any action by the alleged Muttawali of the Waqf in contravention of the Waqf Act, 1995 or the law on the subject i.e. exceeding his jurisdiction and / or which may be prejudicial to the interest of the Waqf, will have serious consequences and should not be undertaken.

¶22

It is further made clear that if the Waqf Board finds that the agreement referred above or any other similar agreements have been entered into illegally, then it shall pass necessary orders irrespective of pendency of this petition, but after hearing the concerted parties including the Muttawali."

¶23

Shri Syed Husain, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the leases executed by the respondent No.3 in violation of Section 26 of the Waqf Act, 1995 without seeking approval of the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, and without following the procedure prescribed in the Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014 (in short "Rules, 2014"). We have also perused the

¶24

definition of lease in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Waqf Board says that Board has issued notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to inquire into the matter and the next date fixed is 12.04.2025.

¶26

List this case on 21.04.2025.

¶27

Till then, respondent No.3, Mutawalli of Waqf No.19, Ex. List, District- Bijnor, is restrained from executing any lease without seeking prior approval of the Board or the State Government as is envisaged under Section 56 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and without complying the provisions of the Rules, 2014.

¶28

By the next date of listing, the Waqf Board shall file an affidavit in response to the writ petition and our orders passed in this case.

¶29

Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel has apprised the Court that the question of sending a judicial officer on deputation to the Waqf Tribunal is under active consideration before the Administrative Authority.

¶30

Let affidavit be exchanged between the parties by the next date of listing.

¶31

The pendency of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the Board or the State Government, whosoever has power under the Waqf Act, 1995 to take remedial measures, whether such measures be interim or final, in respect of the alleged leases already executed by respondent No.3, if they are in violation of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Rules, 2014.

¶32

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶33

Order Date :- 17.3.2025/ Gurpreet Singh

¶34

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raees Ahmad and Another v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raees Ahmad and Another v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gulrana vs Union of India Thru. Its Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 5 Others

Laxmi Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 6 Others

Lko. Sitapur Expressways Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Ganesh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. and 4 Others

M/S Subhash Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Thru. Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax Jurisdiction Sector 2 Admin Bahraich

Waqf Committee T.N.5 Masjid Noor Thru. President Mohd. Arif vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chairman and 2 Others

Pinki vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others