Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1252

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs
Versus
Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7812-7814 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31288-31290 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 7930 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12296 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7929 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12295 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7928 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12291 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7927 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12293 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7926 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12290 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7925 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12288 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7924 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35198 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 7923 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35196 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 7922 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32636 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 7921 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16915 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7914-7920 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19738-19744 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7911-7913 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19721-19723 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7910 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19716 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7909 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19717 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7908 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19920 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7898-007907 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19726-19735 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7896-007897 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19719-19720 of 2012 (IX), Civil Appeal No. 7895 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19725 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7894 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19724 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7893 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19759 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7892 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35760 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7891 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19775 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7890 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35759 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7889 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35777 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7888 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35776 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7887 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19781 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7886 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19736 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7884-7885 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19776-19778 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7872-7883 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19761-19772 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7862-7871 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 35764-35773 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7855-7861 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19782-19788 of 2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7853-7854 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 35762-35763 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7852 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12259 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7851 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12305 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12268 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7849 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12303 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7848 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12266 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7847 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12302 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7846 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14169 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7844 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12271 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7845 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12298 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7843 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12260 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 7840-7842 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12310-12312 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7839 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12307 of 2013), Civil Appeal Nos. 7836-7838 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14177-14179 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7835 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12281 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7834 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12300 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7833 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14176 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7832 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12304 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7831 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12277 of 2013), Civil Appeal No. 7830 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1132 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 7827-7829 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 32129-32131 of 2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 7815-7826 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19747-19758 of 2012)
Decided On : 20-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Mr. Anil Anturkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Javed R. Sheikh, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shivani Viz, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv. Mr. Mujeebuddin Khan, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. S. M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Shah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Rautela, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Satayam Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yusuf Baugwala, Adv. Ms. Sana Baugwala, Adv. Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bhagla, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. K. N. Rai, AOR Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sakya Singha Chaudhuri, AOR Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Ms. Isha Singh, Adv. Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Mahesh Sahasranaman, Adv. Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A.S., Adv. Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Yusuf Hatim Muchhala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Ms. Nandini Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Satpute, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Sagheer A. Khan, Adv. Mr. G. D. Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Saif Zia, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Murtaza Kachwala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Moinuddin Algaus Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Abeezar Faizullabhoy, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Ms. Ekta Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Hussain, Adv. Mr. L. Nidhi Ram Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakarareddy, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG. Mr. K. M. Natraj, ASG. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Anwesha Padhi, Adv. Mr. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Javed R. Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Ms. Suhasani Sen, Adv. Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv. Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Veeraragavan M., Adv. Mr. Kamran Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Sunil C. Chung, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. C. M. Jha, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Nair, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Punit Khanna, Adv. Mr. Pranay Thite, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Mr. Gaijala Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Wakf Act, 1995 - Sections 4, 13, 40, and 43 - Validity of the incorporation of the Wakf Board challenged based on improper survey and list publication - Court found that incorporation prior to the survey was not illegal; demands for separate Boards for Shia and Sunni Wakfs not mandatory under Section 13(2) - Lists of Wakfs published under the Act found to be flawed, prompting a review - The need for transparent surveys and compliance with the Act reaffirmed. (Paras 102-104, 148-194)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The principle of alternate remedy does not exclude the inherent power of the High Court under Article 226, particularly in cases of significant public interest and potential injustice. (Paras 158-160)

(C) Differences between Wakf and Public Trust - Clarified distinctions established between the two concepts under Muslim and English law, emphasizing the nature and governance of properties involved. (Paras 25, 128-130)

(D) Parties involved: Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors.

Table of Content
1. background on the wakf act and its implications (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. formation of the wakf board and initial challenges (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments against the board's constitution and its legality (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's analysis of the legality and duties of the board (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30)
5. final conclusions regarding the approval and authority of the board (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the common questions arises in all these appeals, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by the following common judgment.

3. The facts leading up to the litigation need to be referred to at the very beginning.

The Parliament enacted WAKF ACT , 1995, (hereinafter referred to for the purpose of brevity as, ‘the Act’). By order dated 01.12.1997, the Government of State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State’) appointed a Survey Commissioner purporting to act under Section 4 of the Act. A Wakf Tribunal was constituted at Aurangabad by order dated 30.10.2000. On 04.01.2002, the State incorporated the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs (hereinafter referred to as Board). Incidentally, it is noticed that four members came to be nominated by very same notification, the details of which shall be evident in the course of the judgment. The State forwarded the survey report which it received to the Board which was constituted on 07.05.2002. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘JPC’ for brevity) submitted a report on 08.07.2003.

4. At this juncture, it is apposite that we may notice another dimension of the litigation which is the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 rechristened as the Maharashtra Pubic Trust Act, 1950. The real lis in this case surrounds the question as to whether the respondents before us who turned out to be the writ petitioners before the High Court are Public Trusts or they are in essence or in substance, Wakfs under the Mohammedan Law.

The Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1950 Act’ for brevity), makes his entry on the stage by issuing a circular dated 24.07.2003 which reads as follows:

		“Dated: 24.07.2003
Sub: The Muslim Wakfs/Trusts registered with the Charity Commissioner, and as per Section 43 of the WAKF ACT , 1995.
	CIRCULAR NO. 307 DATED 24.07.2003
According to Section 43 of the WAKF ACT , 1995 Wakfs registered as Public Trusts should not be tried under the Bombay Public Trust. Further orders may be awaited.
		Sd/- The Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State, Mumbai 24.07.2003
Sec. 43 of Act is as follows: “Sec. 43 Wakfs registered before the commencement of the Act demand to be registered-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where any wakf has been registered before the commencement of this Act, under any law for the time being in force, it shall not be necessary to register the Wakf under the provisions of this Act and any such registration made before such commencement shall be deemed to be a registration made under this Act.”

5. On 13.11.2003, a list of Wakfs was published by the Board. The first writ petition came to be filed by one Anjuman-I-Islam on 28.08.2003. A Challenge was laid to the circular issued by the Charity Commissioner. There was also a challenge thrown to the Constitution of the Board.

The High Court proceeded to stay the circular by order dated 17.11.2003 qua the writ petitioner. A spate of writ petitions followed. They were drawn up in similar vein; orders of stay followed as well.

6. It would appear that there was a meeting held by the Law and Judiciary Department to discuss the problems of the Wakfs. A decision was taken on 11.08.2004 to constitute a Committee of the Charity Commissioner and two members of the Board. The following may be noted at this juncture itself

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1252

Cases Referred (15)

Related Judgments

Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs VS Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1252

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Chennai, through its Chief Executive Officer vs Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Chennai, through its Chief Executive Officer - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 5487

Mohammad Abdul Baqi Khan VS Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur - 1968 Supreme(Raj) 47

State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) VS A. P. State Wakf Board - 2022 Supreme(SC) 132

Telangana State Waqf Board VS Solithro Private Limited, Rep. By its Director - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 421

Munawar Sultana VS Gosula Ramulu - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 435

K.Madhusudhanan vs The Sub Registrar, O/o. The Sub Registrar, Dharapuram Tiruppur District - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72974

Meer Hasanullah Sha Dargha vs Tamil Nadu State Wqkf Board, represented by Chief Executive Officer - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 4031

State of Kerala vs T.K.I. Ahamed Sherief, S/O. T.K.A.Ibrahim - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2915

Mohammed Yusuf VS Tamil Nadu Wakf Board - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2980