IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 28 OF APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5788 of 2012 SMT. KHALIDA BEE AND OTHERS Versus MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARDS AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate through Video Conferencing and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal and Shri Atul Khare - Advocates for respondent No.1.

Ms. Sanjana Sahni and Shri Bhanu Pratap - Advocates for respondent No.3 to 6.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

i. To call for the record of proceedings of No.300/Burha/2012/D.No.29/5/22 dated 07-03-2012.

ii. To quash impugned order Annexure P/15 dated 07.03.2012.

2. The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and jurisdiction of the impugned order dated 07.03.2012 Annexure P/15 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board, Bhopal.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land for which the impugned order has been issued is the land of ownership of the petitioner which she had purchased through registered sale deed dated 20.12.2010 Annexure P/7 and 17.02.2011 Annexure P/8. It is further submitted that the land in question was recorded in the revenue records in the name of predecessor in title. It is submitted that from bare perusal of the order, it is crystal clear that the Waqf was recorded in respect of Survey No.290 for area 0.20 Hect. and Kabristan village Mohammadpura in Khasra No.292 having area 0.10 Hect. Rest of the area of the above survey numbers was recorded in the name of predecessor in title and on the basis of which the petitioner had purchased the land through registered sale deed. It is submitted that the CEO vide impugned order has communicated the decision of the Chairman of the Board that by invoking power under Section 41, the remaining land purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed has been included in the Waqf already registered with smaller area of land. It is submitted that such communication by the CEO under Section 41 is without jurisdiction because under Section 41, the power vest with the Board. It is further submitted that as the order has not been passed by the Board, the order is without jurisdiction.

4. Further, it is submitted that as per Section 4, the preliminary survey has to be conducted by the State by notification appointing the Survey Commissioner. The said survey was required to be completed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1995, however, as no survey has been conducted and same has not been recorded, therefore, by the impugned order, exercising the power under section 41, area of land of the same survey numbers, upon which Waqf is already registered, could not have been enhanced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that as the order has been passed on the dictate of the Chairman of the Board, therefore it should be treated to be order passed by the Board. However, it is further submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to say that whether the sanction of the Board has been taken or not. However, he could not point out from the record which has been uploaded on the ERP in regard to the impugned order that such sanction by the Board has been obtained or not. It is further submitted that under Section 41, the authorities have rightly exercised the power as in the year 1912-13, the revenue entires of land of Khasra No.124 and 139 was recorded as "Purani Kabren Masjiden Kabristan". The notification to the said effect was issued vide notification dated 25.08.1989. It is further submitted that if any person has to challenge the validity of the order passed under Section 41, then that person has to challenge it by filing a suit under Section 7 before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that once the property has been declared as Waqf, then the jurisdiction to de-notify vest