Karnataka High Court
Mohd.Ghouse - Appellant
Versus
Secy.,karnataka Board of Wakfs - Respondent
Decided On : 04-11-85
W.P. : 5487 of 1985
Wakf - Jurisdiction of Board - Act 1954, Section 2, 4, 5, 10, 15 - The court held that the Masjid in question, even if not registered as Wakf, falls under the purview of the Act and is under the superintendence and control of the Board. The court also stated that a wrong recital of a provision of law in the order does not vitiate the order as long as there is such power vested in the Board.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the Board of Wakfs constituting the Managing Committee for the management of the Wakf institution known as Jamia Masjid of Mattikote village, Shikaripur taluk, Shimoga District.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary hearing.
Issues: 1. Jurisdiction of the Board over the Wakf institution. 2. Constitution of the Managing Committee without the application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi: The Masjid, even if not registered as Wakf, falls under the purview of the Act and is under the control of the Board. A wrong recital of a provision of law in the order does not vitiate the order as long as there is such power vested in the Board.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 12th Mar. , 1985, passed by the Board of Wakfs (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') in No. KTW/cmc/35 SMA 83-84 constituting the Managing Committee of nine members for the management of the Wakf institution known as Jamia Masjid of Mattikote village, Shikaripur taluk, Shimoga District.
( 2 ) THE contentions urged by Sri K. Channabasappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner admit of following points for determination - (i) Jamia Masjid of Mattikote village has not been registered as Wakf under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction or authority to exercise control over it and appoint a committee of Management; (ii) that even if it is assumed that such power resides in the Board, the constitution of the members of the Managing Committee is without the application of mind in that the order proclaims that it is done in exercise of power under S. 10 of the Act which does not confer such power on the Board. 3ipoint No. 1 :- It is the case of the petitioner that Jamia Maszid in question has not been registered, therefore, it is not a wakf coming under the purview of the Act. S. 2 of the Act specifically provides that save as otherwise expressly provided under the Act, the Act shall apply to all Wakfs whether created before or after the commencement of the Act. The proviso thereto specifically excludes certain Wakfs from the purview of the Act. That Wakf is Durgah, Khawaja Saheb, Ajmer to which the Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 applies. There is no other provision in the Act excluding the Wakf of the type in question from the purview of the Act. The immoveable property in question is a Wakf. It is claimed by the petitioner himself in the petition that the Masjid in question has been in existence from time immemorial. A Masjid or Mosque is a place of worship of God and it is not capable of human ownership or possession. It belongs to God and is dedicated to His Worship. Thus a Maszid or Mosque is Wakf as defined in the Act whether it is registered or not. It is the bounden duty of the authority exercising power under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act to enlist Mosque or Maszid as Wakf and it is also the duty of the Board to register a Mosque or Maszid as Wakf. That being so, it is not possible to hold that Jamia Maszid in question cannot be considered to be the Wakf coming under the purview of the Act, because it is not registered. 3ii. In support of the contention that it is not registered under the Act and, therefore, it does not come under the purview of the Act, reliance is placed on the provisions contained in Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act which provide for listing of the Wakfs and properties of Wakf and publication of the list of those. Merely because it is not included as contended by the petitioner, in the list of Wakfs, it does not cease to be a Wakf. As long as it does not cease to be a Wakf, and it continues to be a Wakf, it comes under the purview of the Act. Consequently it comes under the control of the Board. There is a special chapter for registration of Wakfs. In fact if the petitioner has been in the management of the Wakf in question on his own or at the instance of the members of the Muslim community of the village it was his duty to have the Wakf registered under Chap. IV of the Act. In addition to this, it is pertinent to note that the Board has contributed considerable sum for reconstruction of the Mosque in question. It is stated in the petition that the Board has contributed Rs. 11,000/- for the purpose of construction of the mosque. The petitioner has failed to have the Wakf registered under Chap. IV of the Act. If only the petitioner had got it registered as Wakf, it would have been entered in the register of Wakfs which is required to be maintained under S. 26 of the Act. The petitioner cannot make virtue out of his
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.