IMPORTANT POINT
The Managing Committee of a Wakf institution can auction leasehold rights for less than one year without prior sanction from the Wakf Board, as per the Wakf Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represented on behalf of Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri Mohammed Gayasuddein, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, Sri Shaik Rafi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri Gannavarapu Suryam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 13.

2. It is the case of the appellants that they are tenants of land admeasuring Ac.32.20 cents in different survey numbers of Damaramadugu Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District belonging to Mohiddinia Masjid, Damaramadugu Village. It is contended that the ancestors of the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners have been cultivating these lands from the year 1970 onwards and have been paying rent to the Managing Committee of the said Masjid.

3. The District Wakf Officer proposed to conduct an auction of the leasehold rights of these lands through a notification dated 11.08.2021 and the same came to be challenged by the petitioners, in a writ petition. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 10.05.2023, after which a subsequent auction notice was again issued on 21.09.2023, proposing to conduct an auction on 28.09.2023, for the leasehold rights of the aforesaid lands.

4. This auction was again challenged, by way of W.P. No. 25493 of 2023. The grounds on which the auction proceedings have been challenged are: under Section 32(2)(j) of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Board is competent to sanction the lease of any immovable property of a Wakf; the present proposal to auction leasehold rights is by way of impugned auction notification, issued by the 4th respondent-Managing Committee which is incompetent to issue such a notification; the proceedings under which the 4th respondent sought to conduct the auction of leasehold rights is by way of a proceeding under Section 27 of the Wakf Act, issued by the Administrative Officer of the Wakf Board; such authorization, amounting to delegation of powers of the Board under Section 27 of the Act is impermissible as the Wakf Board can delegate its power only to Chair Person or any other member of the Wakf Board of the Chief Executive Officer and such delegation cannot be made to a committee; the Wakf lease Rules permit lease of lesser than one year to be given by Muthavalli or the Wakf Board whereas the lease was sought to be granted by the committee appointed by the Wakf Board and the same is not permissible; and the notification was issued in the name of Secretary Masjid Managing Committee whereas the Managing Committee, appointed by the Wakf Board does not have any person designated as Secretary of the Masjid Committee and such notification would have to fail.

5. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides had held that the Administrator of the Wakf Board, in the absence of any existing Wakf Board, would be entitled to authorize the auction of the leasehold rights of a Wakf institution and had dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have moved this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

7. Sri O. Manoher Reddy, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Wakf Board had ceased to exist and the Special Officer appointed for managing the affairs of the Wakf Board had also been removed by virtue of an order of this Court dated 21.08.2023 in W.P. Nos. 9030 and 13875 of 2023. He would submit that the Administrator appointed under this order would not stand in the place of the Wakf Board and as such, cannot grant necessary approvals or permissions required under the Wakf Act, for auction of the leasehold rights of the immovable property of a Wakf Institution. He would further submit that, assuming without admitting that such an Administrator has the authority