The entire properties dedicated for religious, pious, and charitable purposes are subject to the control of the Waqfs Board. The Board has the power to supervise and control the management of the properties, issue necessary directions, and take action for removal of the Mutawalli. However, the Board does not have the power to suspend the Mutawalli.

HARI SWARUP, J. :- This appeal has been filed by the U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs (hereinafter referred as the Waqfs Board) against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The petitioner Smt. Hasan Jehan Begum had filed the writ petition challenging certain acts of the Waqfs Board. That petition was allowed by the learned single Judge partly.

2. The petitioner is the Mutawalli of the two Waqfs created in 1929 and 1930 and subsequently alleged to be consolidated by another deed in 1943. The waqif purported to create Waqf-Alal-Aulad and also to dedicate the property under the Muslim Law for purposes religious, pious and charitable. Under the Waqfs deed there is a specific amount allotted to those religious, pious and charitable purposes and the remainder has to go to the beneficiaries, that is to say, the descendants of the waqif. Ultimately the entire property has to go for the benefit of religious, pious and charitable purposes provided that no one survives in the line of the descendants of the waqif. The Waqfs are registered with the Waqfs Board under Section 29 of the U. P. Muslims Waqfs Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Waqfs Act). The Mutawalliya sought permission to sell certain items of immovable property. The permission was granted, but subsequently it was stayed. The Mutawalliya, however, executed the sale-deeds. There was also question of the sale of mango crop of the groves covered by two Waqfs. According to the Mutawalliya, it was being sold for Rs. 5,000 but the Waqfs Board taking the view that the property worth Rs. 20.000 was being sold for a paltry sum of Rupees 5,000 gave the direction that the sale will be made by auction by en Officer of the Board. The Waqfs Board also gave direction to the petitioner to submit accounts of the entire waqf property and also proceeded to take action for the removal of the petitioner from the Mutawalliship of the property and directed her suspension. Aggrieved by these acts of the Waqfs Board, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

2-A. It was urged before the learned single Judge that the Waqf being a Waqf-Alal-Aulad with only limited right of income reserved for religious, pious and charitable purposes could not be deemed to be a Waqf within the meaning of the Waqfs Act and the Waqfs Board could have no jurisdiction to give any direction to the Mutawalliya or to interfere with the management or proceed to remove her from Mutawalliship. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the Waqf was a WaqfAlal-Aulad and it was not controllable of the fixed income which was to be utilised for purposes religious, pious and charitable. The learned single Judge accordingly quashed the Boards order regarding the sale of the mango crop by auction. The proceedings for removal and for rendition of accounts and also the notice initiating the proceedings for the removal of the Mutawalliya were also quashed. The order passed by the Waqfs Board suspending the Mutawalliya pending enquiry for removal was also quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the Waqfs Board has contended that the entire properties of the Waqfs were subject to the control by the waqfs Board and the Waqfs in question were Waqfs within the meaning of Section 3 (11) of the Waqfs Act. On this basis it has been contended that the Board had the jurisdiction to supervise and control the management of the properties by the Mutawalliya and also to take action for her removal because she had made wrongful alienations of Waqf property and had rendered herself liable to be removed. On the same ground learned counsel contended that the Board had the jurisdiction and power to suspend the petitioner from the office of Mutawalliya by virtue of the powers contained in Sections 19 and 55 of the Waqfs Act. The contention of the respondents learned counsel is that the Waqfs in question being waqfsalal-aulad are not governed by the Waqfs Act.

For determining the powers of the Board, it is necessary to determine if the presen