Remanded

Sheikh Mayuddin Allauddin v. Chairman Gujarat State Waqf Board

Gujarat HC3 Mar 2020CRA/665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Gujarat quashed tribunal orders failing to address rival evidence or adjudicate management rights under Section 36 of Wakf Act, remanded case for proper inquiry with exception for Bhadiyad property.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal to reconsider Dhandhuka property claims considering all evidence after hearing parties; Bhadiyad property management order upheld; Stay application disposed as infructuous.

Sheikh Mayuddin Allauddin Vs Chairman Gujarat State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

C/CRA/665/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 665 of 2018 With

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 665 of 2018 With

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2020 In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 665 of 2018

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

SHEIKH MAYUDDIN ALLAUDDIN

¶8

Versus

¶9

CHAIRMAN GUJARAT STATE WAQF BOARD

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

Appearance: POOJA K ASHAR(8148) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,3,4 MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Opponent(s) No. 1

¶12

==========================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

¶14

Date : 03/03/2020

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

The revision is directed against the order dated 27.09.2018 rendered by the Gujarat State Wakf Tribunal at Gandhinagar in Wakf Application No. 123 of 2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner for managing the wakf property situated at Dhandhuka was rejected while acknowledging the right of the opponent to manage the wakf from Bhadiyad.

¶17

On consideration of the rival submissions, it appears that the claims and counter-claims were made in Wakf Application No. 77 of 2017 and Wakf Application No. 107 of 2013 whereunder an order came to be passed on 19.01.2015 and the matter was taken to appeal with the tribunal being Wakf Application No. 123 of 2016 whereunder an order of remand

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

C/CRA/665/2018 ORDER

¶20

was passed which was made subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 19083 of 2017 and Civil Revision Application No. 499 of 2017 and eventually after this court directed the tribunal to decide the case finally, the impugned order has been rendered in the said Wakf Application No. 123 of 2016.

¶21

As far as first order referred to hereinabove is concerned, it appears that no detailed discussions about the rival evidence was made. The objections were discussed but were not taken to logical end and the properties at Bhadiyad was ordered to be registered as wakf property. Similarly in the second order also there was no detailed discussion; there was no answer to the rival submissions as to who amongst the rivals were in the management of the property at Dhandhuka; however, an order was passed in respect of the said property under the registration of Bhadiyad Wakf Register. The third order, as indicated above, merely remanded the case. Thus, it appears to this court that the controversy has not been addressed properly nor the adjudication has been made.

¶22

Section 36 of the Wakf Act enjoins a duty upon the Wakf Board/Tribunal to make an inquiry into the claims and render the decision. That having not been done and the evidence having not been addressed and adjudication having not been made, none except the first order which grants the relief to the opponent in respect of Bhadiyad property, are sustainable. The orders being improper and illegal; are liable to be quashed and set aside, and in absence of proper inquiry and adjudication, it is deemed fit to remand the case to the Wakf Board with a direction to it to reconsider the case after taking into consideration all the legal provisions and the evidence adduced or as may be adduced by the parties.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/CRA/665/2018 ORDER

¶25

The Wakf Board shall record its findings in the context of the evidence adduced on each and every point raised before it and should give an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶26

It is clarified that the cases in relation to Dhandhuka property i.e. Wakf Application No. 77 of 2013 and Wakf Application No. 107 of 2013 are required to be decided again and the cases in relation to Bhadiyad property will not be decided again.

¶27

Consequently Civil Application No. 2 of 2020 is also required to be granted as the order assimilating to Dhandhuka property into the wakf of Bhadiyad property would not be sustainable since the principal orders in that regard are set aside by this court. Although the applicant has prayed for an injunction against the order dated 16.07.2019 whereby the Dhandhuka property came to be registered under the registration of wakf of Bhadiyad property; as a consequence of the order in the main revision application, the said order dated 16.07.2019 would be rendered infructuous.

¶28

In view of disposal of main revision application, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 does not survive; the same is disposed of.

¶29

(G.R.UDHWANI, J)

¶30

syed/

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sheikh Mayuddin Allauddin v. Chairman Gujarat State Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheikh Mayuddin Allauddin v. Chairman Gujarat State Waqf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramilaben Jethabhai Mehta Vs Laljibhai Punjabhai Taral

Lakhubha Khumansinh Chudasama Vs Gajraba Narendrasinh Zala D/O Mohansinh Khumansinh Chudasama

Gaurang Kantilal Acharya Vs Nilkanth Kantilal Acharya

Vitthalbhai Manibhai Fulmadi Vs Shri Sayajigunj Dutt Mandir Trust

vitthalbhai lallubhai patel Vs Kapilaben Madhusudhan Mahant

vitthalbhai lallubhai patel Vs Kapilaben Madhusudhan Mahant