The court underscored the necessity of due process, stating administrative resolutions lack validity if issued without proper notice to affected parties, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri.Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Chand Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Sri.Mahmood Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Anand Kumar M., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.2 in Application No.1/21 before the Waqf Tribunal is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 13.06.2022.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. An application under Section 83 (2) of the Waqf Act 1995 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision petition.

3.2. The application relief reads as under:

“Wherefore, the applicants most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

a. Call for the original records from the respondents in the matter including the impugned resolutions.

b. Set aside the impugned resolutions dated 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 at Annexure-A and B respectively passed by the respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity.

c. Award cost of this application.

d. Grant any other or further relief/s to the applicants as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deems fit and thinks proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

3.3. It is contented in the application that respondent No.1 is the Sajjadanasheen and customary Mujawar and petitioner No.1 is the co-mujawar of Dargah Hazrath Tawakkal Mastan Shah, Soharwadi (R.A.) situated at O.T.C. Road, Cottonpet, Bangalore - 53.

3.4. Based on such positions, they were the custodians of the said dargah including the key of the locks.

3.5. It is further contented that as per provision 220 in Chapter XII of Mohammedan law, Sajjadanasheen is a teacher of the religious doctrine and rules of life and he is the manager and in that capacity, administrator/executive of the institution and administrator of its charities.

3.6. The status of Sajjadanasheen is higher than that of a mutawalli. Sajjadanasheen is the Head of the Institution of Dargah and Khanquah.

3.7. Succession to the office of the Sajjadanasheen is regulated by custom and during the lifetime, Sajjadanasheen can nominate his successor.

3.8. It is further contented that as per sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Waqf Act, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, in respect of any Waqf, can exercise the power vested in the said provision and Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the Waqf.

3.9. Purpose of the Wakf and any usage or custom of the Waqf sanctioned by the School of Muslim law to which the Waqf belongs. There is no specific power conferred on the Waqf Board under the Wakf Act insofar as the appointment of Sajjadanasheen.

3.10. It is further contented that R.Nisar Ahmed is the true father of the petitioners and he was the Sajjadanasheen as also he was the hereditary and customary Mujawar of the above said Dargah.

3.11. Prior to him, his father, grandfather, great grandfather were the Sajjadanasheen and Mujawars of the Dargah in question during their lifetime.

3.12. R.Nisar Ahmed said to have died on 21.03.2020 leaving behind petitioners herein. It is further contented that R.Nisar Ahmed during his lifetime has nominated petitioners herein as Sajjadanasheen and bestowed hereditary and customary post of Mujawars.

3.13. It is also contended that he had submitted a letter of intimation on 02.03.2020 before the Chief Executive of Karnataka State Board of Waqf intimating about the nomination of the petitioner herein to the post of said Dargah.