Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR
Jama Masjid Trust Yavatmal - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar - Respondent
WP/3058/2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 25, 32, and 83 - Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal - Petitioners challenged the orders of the Chief Executive Officer regarding management of Waqf Institution, asserting lack of review power under the Act - Court emphasized that the Waqf Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such disputes. (Paras 10, 24)
(B) Review Power - The court held that the Chief Executive Officer lacks inherent power to review its own orders unless expressly conferred by law, reaffirming that review is a statutory creation. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, managing the Jama Masjid Waqf, contested orders favoring rival trustees, claiming lack of notice and authority in the change report process. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Chief Executive Officer acted without jurisdiction in accepting the change report and emphasized the necessity of following statutory procedures. (Paras 15, 24)
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the Chief Executive Officer to review orders and the appropriate forum for challenging such decisions. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Waqf Tribunal is the proper venue for disputes under the Waqf Act, and the Chief Executive Officer's review powers are not inherent but must be explicitly granted by statute. (Paras 10, 24)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs, Sambhajinagar/Respondent no.2 and impugned Resolution No.36, dated 06.03.2024, passed by Respondent No.1/Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The Respondent No.2 had also directed rehearing of the matter by the Maharashtra State Waqf Board.
4. Petitioners are managing the affairs of the Waqf Institution i.e. the Jama Masjid, Tanga Chowk, Yavatmal, it is institution which was initially registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 with the Charity Commissioner office vide registration No. B-28. After coming into force the Waqf Act, 1995, the same is registered with the WaqF Baord vide registration No. M.S.B.W./YTM/124/2013 on 28/01/2013 under Section 43 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
5. Previous Trustees/Mutawallis of the said Waqf Institution have expired. After the death of all the Trustees/Mutawalis of the Waqf, the present Petitioners were managing the affairs of the Waqf. The Petitioners were rendering regular services to the Waqf Institution and were looking after the day to day affairs of the said Waqf Institution. The Petitioners, after proper compliance of all the terms and conditions, had filed a Change Report with the office of the Waqf Board for effecting change in the management of the said Waqf Institution. The Respondent Nos.3 to 13 had also filed a false and frivolous Change Report and application for the settlement of Scheme for the ‘Waqf’ behind the back of the present Petitioners. The Petitioners were unaware of the change report and application for settlement of Scheme for the Waqf filed by the Respondents. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Waqf passed an order dated 31.05.2013 thereby accepted and sanctioned the Scheme proposed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 13 with respect to the said ‘Waqf’, vide Case No.MSBW/ENQ/4929/13. After two days of the passing of the order dated 31.05.2013, the Respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board passed another order on 03.06.2013 thereby accepted the false and frivolous Change Report submitted by the Respondent Nos.3 to 13.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2013 and 03.06.2013 of the Chief Executive Officer, the Petitioners challenged the same before the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad vide Waqf Application No.11/2015, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 28.09.2018. The Waqf Tribunal set aside the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and remanded back the matter to the Board with direction to decide the issue of settlement of Scheme afresh by giving an opportunity to both the parties. In pursuance to the judgment dated 28.09.2018, passed by the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, the Waqf Board passed a Resolution No.56 on 24.01.2024. In pursuance to the said resolution, the Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 13.02.2024 thereby rejecting the applications of the Respondent Nos.3 to 13 for framing of scheme. By the said order, the Respondent No.2 accepted the Change Report submitted by the Petitioners.
7. Respondent No.3 filed an application before the Waqf Board thereby challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 is presently presided over by Shri Juned Bashir Sayyad, who is an Incharge CEO of the Maharashtra State Waqf Board in as much as the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 was passed by the said Incharge CEO. The appointment of Mr. Juned Bashir Sayyad is a subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.5272/2024, which is pending before this Court as he does not qualify the criteria for the appointment on the post of CEO. The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
8. Learn
AI
The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board lacks inherent power to review its own orders; disputes must be addressed by the Waqf Tribunal as per the Waqf Act, 1995.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board lacks inherent power to review its own orders, and disputes must be addressed before the Waqf Tribunal as per the Waqf Act, 1995.
Impugned CEO order under Waqf Act not final; Waqf Board to hear parties afresh with opportunity and independent enquiry.
The Waqf Board has the authority to review its resolutions, and the sale of Waqf property must adhere to statutory procedures to protect Waqf interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the replacement of the Scheme Court by the Waqf Board as per Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the requirement for the Official Trustee to comp....
Petitioner must challenge Waqf Board order before the Waqf Tribunal, not High Court under Article 226.
The Waqf Board can only manage waqf under its authority if no existing court scheme is in place; otherwise, modifications require State Government action.
The Waqf Board has the authority to remove a Mutawalli under the Waqf Act and appoint an Executive Officer in the interest of the Waqf, affirming the integrity of procedural statutory provisions.
The Waqf Board acted without jurisdiction in recalling the managing committee's appointment, violating statutory procedures and principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
