Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6702
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J
UDAJI KESHAV UTTEKAR AND OTHER – Appellant
Versus
HAZRAT PEER RAJE BAGSAR PEERWADI THROUGH IT S TRUSTEES AND OTHER – Respondent
CA 7095 / 2018
Mr. Amol K. Gawali, Advocate for the applicants/s; Mr. Y.B. Pathan, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2; Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the intervenors
The Waqf Board has the authority to review its earlier resolutions, and the CEO's actions in this regard are valid under the Waqf Act, ensuring adherence to procedural requirements.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Sections 25, 26, 51, and 112 - Revision application challenging the dismissal of Waqf Application No.13/2011 by the Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal - The Tribunal upheld the legality of the subsequent resolution passed by the Waqf Board, allowing for the review of earlier permissions granted for the sale of Waqf property - The CEO's authority to review prior resolutions was affirmed, and the Tribunal found no procedural impropriety in the Board's actions. (Paras 8, 12, 16, 17)
(B) Authority of Waqf Board - The Tribunal clarified that the Waqf Board has the competency to reconsider resolutions that were not passed in accordance with the law, especially if they could cause financial loss to the Waqf. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, as Mutwallis of a Waqf property, sought to challenge the Tribunal's dismissal of their application against a resolution that questioned the legality of a prior sale permission granted by the Waqf Board. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the earlier resolution was subject to review and that the subsequent resolution was valid, as it adhered to the procedural requirements of the Waqf Act. (Paras 16-18)
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the CEO to review prior resolutions and the legality of the subsequent resolution passed by the Waqf Board. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Waqf Board has the authority to review its earlier resolutions and that the CEO's actions were within the scope of the law, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements. (Paras 16-17)
Result: Revision application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the waqf property (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application for selling waqf property (Para 5) |
| 4. proposal forwarded to the ministry (Para 6) |
| 5. new ceo's actions regarding resolution (Para 7) |
| 6. counsel's arguments regarding tribunal's decision (Para 8) |
| 7. opposition to applicants' submissions (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 8. observations on the legality of resolutions (Para 12) |
| 9. discussion on the authority of the ceo (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 10. court's ruling on the authority of the waqf board (Para 18) |
| 11. final decision on the revision application (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present applicants, who are the original applicants in Waqf Application No.13/20111, have preferred this Revision Application for challenging the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal (hereinafter referred as “the learned Tribunal”). As per the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application of the applicants, challenging the legality and correctness of the Resolution of Waqf Board bearing No.15/2010 dated 08.02.2010 and the consequent communication to them by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), bearing No. MRVM/SNT-456/3510/2010 dated 17.06.2010.
2. The background facts of the case are as under:
The present applicant Nos.2 to 9 are the Mutwalli of the applicant No.1 Waqf property. Whereas, the applicant Nos.10 to 17 are the prospective purchasers of the Waqf property.
3. The applicant No.1 is an old Waqf, consisting of Darga and Masjid registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 at PTR B-196/Satara. After commencement of the Walf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), the same is deemed to be registered under Section 43 of the Act and entered in Kitabul Awkaf maintained under Section 37 of the said Act. Thus, the non-applicant No.1 is under general supervision of the Waqf Board.
4. The applicants are claiming that the property, the subject matter of the original application, is a Waqf property, which is the agricultural land bearing old Survey No.110/A (new Survey No.16/A), admeasuring, 4 Acres 29 Gunthas. The non-applicant No.2-CEO is bound to follow the directions of the Waqf Board.
5. Since the aforesaid Waqf property was not generating any income, the applicant Nos.2 to 9 being Mutwalli applied to Waqf Board for selling the said property. Then, the Waqf Board under Resolution No.20, dated 28.04.2005 also granted sanction for selling the said Waqf property. The applicant Nos.10 to 17 offered highest bidding at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per Guntha and accorded their willingness to purchase the property. The then CEO vide order dated 19.05.2005 permitted the Mutwalli to sell out the property at aforesaid rate with certain safeguards. The CEO also directed the Mutwalli to apply to the Collector, Satara for levying full land revenue as the land ceases to be utilized for any religious and pious purpose. Vide resolution dated 11.12.2005, the Board of Mutwalli of the Waqf decided to enter in to an agreement of sale with the applicant Nos.10 to 17 and by accepting earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- executed the agreement of sale in favour of the applicant Nos.10 to 17 in respect of the said property for total consideration of Rs.59,40,000/-. The remaining amount of the consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed within a period of three months from the date of the order of full assessment of land revenue.
6. Accordingly, the applicants-Mutwalli applied to the Collector, Satara for full assessment of land revenue and to delete the land from Alienation Register, as the land was entered in the said Register as Class-III Inam. The proposal to that effect was forwarded to the Ministry of Revenue, Maharashtra Government by letter dated 05.01.2006 and the concerned Ministry asked the Waqf Board as to whether the provisions of Section 51 of the Act were complied and selling of such Waqf property was possible.
