IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O.3557 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2024 Mirza Murtaza Ali & Anr.

VS.

Syed Ezaz Ali & Anr.

For the Petitioners :Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Iftekar Munshi, Adv.

For the Auqaf Board/ :Mr. Md. Salahuddin, Adv.

opposite party no.2 Mr. Md. Ahsanuzzaman, Adv.

Mr. Md. Raziuddin, Adv.

For the Intervener :Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr., Adv.

Ms. Susmita Das, Adv.

Ms. Debangana Dey Nayak, Adv.

Last Heard On :05.03.2025 Judgment On :11.03.2025 Bibhas Ranjan De, J. :

1. The instant revision application has its genesis from an application filed by the petitioners herein after the death of the erstwhile Mutawalli, for consideration of their application for Mutawlliship in respect of Kazi Sirajuddin Ali Khan and Musst. Karamunnessa Begam Waqf Estate, a public waqf in terms of the provision of the Waqf Act 1995 (for short Act of 1995), which was duly accepted by the Board of Waqf through the resolution dated

25.11.2020.

2. Being aggrieved, the opposite party herein filed an application under Section 83 (2) of the Act of 1995 thereby assailing and challenging the said resolution with a prayer for setting aside of the resolution dated November 25, 2020 and to pass an order restraining the private respondents i.e., the petitioners herein and/or their men, agents and assigns from carrying out any activity in the Waqf Estate on the basis of the resolution dated November 25, 2020. The said application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 was registered as O.A. 02 of 2022.

3. The matter was taken up on November 01, 2022 for consideration by the Learned Waqf Tribunal, which in tern was pleased to pass an order dated November 01, 2022 thereby setting aside the resolution dated November 25, 2020 passed by the Board of Auqaf, West Bengal mainly on two scores i.e. firstly the Board did not adhere to the principle of natural justice by giving ample opportunity to both the parties for hearing as the representation of the opposite party was not considered and the other being, the impugned resolution was passed under administrative agenda and not in general resolution. Accordingly, the Ld. Tribunal passed an order thereby setting aside the impugned resolution passed by the Board of Waqf with the direction to the Board to pass resolution afresh after giving sufficient hearing to both the parties as per rule of succession given in the deed of Waqf as well as the law prescribed.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside of the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Waqf of Tribunal.

5. In the meantime, the opposite party to the application being no.

C.O. 3557 of 2022 passed away and his son namely Syed Aiyaz Ali preferred a CAN application with a prayer for substitution of his name in place of Syed Ejaz Ali since deceased and also for modification of an Order passed by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.10.2023.

At the Bar:-

6. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has mainly canvassed his argument on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Tribunal is bad in the eye of law as it was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their pleadings and it is based on erroneous findings of law and fact. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Ld. Counsel, Mr. MD. Salahuddin, appearing on behalf of the Board of Waqf/opposite party no.2 has submitted that the order of the Ld. Tribunal is being complied with in its entirety in consonance with the direction provided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.10.2023.

8. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Jaydip Kar, appearing on behalf of the Intervener has contended that Syed Aiyaz Ali has already filed an application before the Board of Waqf for consideration.

Analysis:-

9. Considering the nomenclature of dispute at hand it would be profitable to first r