The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes related to waqf property should be filed in the first instance before the Waqf Tribunal, and the availability of statutory remedy under the Waqf Act for deciding such disputes.

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Puneet Kumar Gupta appearing on behalf of Waqf Board and Sri D.K. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.4.1997 passed by the Controller, Shia Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 2) and also praying for quashing of notice issued by the Collector, Agra (respondent No. 3) on 20th January 1998.

3. The case set up by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Society which has purchased certain Plots of land, namely Plot No. 807 (area 1 Bigha 11 Biswa) and Plot No. 924 (area 2 Bigha 18) in village Bhogipura, Tahsil Sadar, District Agra which was earlier property of Waqf Mir Niaz Ali record in the Revenue Records. In 1973 one Syed Athar Ali Jafri was Mutawalli and he had applied to the Shia Waqf Board for grant of permission to sell the suit property and the Board had granted permission on 22.5.1973. Before such transfer could be actually made, the Mutawalli Syed Athar Ali Jafri died and one Syed Ali Qaisar was appointed as Mutawalli and a fresh permission was obtained from the Board on 27.12.1973 for transfer of Plot No. 807 and Plot No. 924 situated at village Bhogipura, Tahsil Sadar, District Agra district.

4. After such grant of permission, the Mutawalli executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner society on 24.10.1977 and the name of the petitioner society was recorded in the Revenue Records.

5. However, the petitioner society received a notice on 14.8.1990/27.9.1990 under Section 49-B of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as the old Act), wherein it was mentioned that the aforesaid plots were transferred without prior permission of the Board and the petitioner was required to show cause notice as to why proceedings under Section 49-B of the old Act be not initiated. The petitioner filed a reply submitting, prior permission given by the Board and also the proof of deposit of requisite amount of sale consideration. Even then the Board bargained with the petitioner and eventually settled the controversy by compelling the society to made further payments of Rs. 50,000/- to the Board. By an order dated 10.7.1991, the proceedings initiated by notice dated 14.8.1990/27.9.1990 were dropped.

6. However, another notice was sent to the petitioner society on 23.6.1995 to show cause notice as to why proceedings under Section 49-B of the Act be not initiated. The petitioner submitted a written reply and its Secretary also appeared before the Board on the date fixed, on which date no hearing took place and it was conveyed to him that as and when hearing would take place, the petitioner shall be intimated. Suddenly, without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard, an order was passed on 28.4.1997 declaring the sale deed dated 24.10.1977 to be illegal. This order was passed by the Controller, Shia Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Later a notice was issued by the Collector, Agra on 20th January 1998 under Rule 51 and Section 52 of the Old Act, referring to a requisition being sent by the Shia Waqf Board under sub-section 1 of Section 52 for delivery of possession of the land under notice in the alleged occupation of the petitioner, the transfer being in contravention of Section 49-A of the Old Act and Section 51 of the New Act. In the said notice, the Collector had asked the petitioner society to deliver possession of the property to the Shia Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within a period of thirty days, failing which ejectment proceedings would be initiated, as provided in Rule 7 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Board (Regulation of Waqf Property) Rules 1972 under Section 52 of the Waqf Act.

7. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha relied u