2016 Supreme(All) 3872
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, JJ.
Mohd Imran Khan - Appellant
Versus
U.P. Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs Thru. Its Chairman & Anr. - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 28612 of 2016
Decided On : 02-12-2016
For the Petitioner:- Yadukul Shiromani Srivast
For the Respondent:- Q.H. Rizvi
The absence of an order under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, precludes the court from issuing directions for the removal of encroachment and eviction of unauthorized occupants from waqf property.
Headnote:
Waqf Property - Removal of Encroachment - Waqf Act, 1995, Section 54
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to remove encroachment and illegal occupation over a waqf property in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner relied on letters from the Chairman of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board but did not produce any order/proceedings under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no order had been passed under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and therefore, could not issue directions for removal of encroachment and eviction of unauthorized occupants.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of evidence of an order under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, for removal of encroachment and eviction of unauthorized occupants from the waqf property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of any order passed under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which is necessary for the removal of encroachment and eviction of unauthorized occupants from waqf property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of as the petitioner failed to establish the existence of an order under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and was advised to seek remedies available under local laws in Himachal Pradesh.
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,JJ.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Q.H. Rizvi representing the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
2. The petitioner, alleging himself to be duly appointed Mutawalli of Waqf Ismalia No.209 - Ex II Meerut (Ghaziabad), has filed this petition seeking a direction to be issued by this Court to the Collector, Solan, Himachal Pradesh to ensure removal of encroachment and illegal occupation over the property situate in Mauza Lower Bazar, Solan, Tehsil & District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which according to the petitioner is comprised in the waqf property of the waqf in question.
3. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to three letters written by the Chairman of U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, which have been annexed as Annexure Nos.4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition. Vide Annexure Nos.4 and 6, the Chairman of the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board has made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Himachal Pradesh to remove the encroachment and evict the illegal occupants from the waqf property situate in district Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Vide Annexure No.5, which is the letter dated 18.2.2015, the Chairman of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board has made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Himachal Pradesh pointing out certain discrepancies in the Mutation Orders in relation to the waqf property, which have been passed in favour of the petitioner only in respect of half of the property. The Chairman through the said letter has also expressed its concern that the earlier orders passed by the Waqf Board have not been given effect to.
4. So far as the issue relating to removal of encroachment over the property situate in District Solan, Himachal Pradesh is concerned, we may only observe that the petitioner has only relied on the letters written by the Chairman, U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and has not produced any order/proceedings which may have been passed or drawn under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is undisputed that Section 54 of the Waqf Act unambiguously provides that in case the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board considers that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property, which is a waqf property either on receiving a complaint or on his own motion, then in that eventuality, he shall issue a notice to the encroacher calling upon him to remove the encroachment. Sub-Section (3) of Section 54 further prescribes that if, after considering the objections? from the alleged encroacher, the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the property in question is 'waqf property' and there has been an encroachment thereon, he will make an application to the Tribunal for grant of order of eviction for removal of such an encroachment and deliver possession of land, building, space or any other such property encroached upon. Sub-Section (4) of Section 54 prescribes that the Tribunal after receiving such an application from the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf shall make an order of eviction directing that the waqf property shall be vacated by the illegal occupants. The proviso appended to Sub-Section (4) of Section 54 requires the Tribunal to give an opportunity of being heard to the person against whom the application for eviction is moved by the Chief Executive officer.
5. In the instant case, no such order which could be said to have been passed under the provisions of Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 has been brought on record. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner has, however, stated that as per the amended Section 28 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (as substituted w.e.f. 1.11.2003), the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate of a district in the State will be responsible for implementation of the decision of the Board, which may be conveyed through the Chief Exec