The Wakf Board's proceedings were found to be illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and the Waqf Act, necessitating judicial intervention.

ORDER:

Petitioner, a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Act, 1350, challenges the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent-Wakf Board dated 01.06.2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principle of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner, succinctly stated, is as follows:

Two individuals, namely, Mr. Syed Abbas Hussain, and Mr. Mir Ahmed Ali Zaidi, (hereinafter be referred to as ‘Wakifs’), during their lifetime, dedicated the under Municipal Nos 22-2-638 to 644 situated at Darulshifa, Hyderabad for the purposes of Ibadat Khana, through a Wakf Deed dated 15.02.1953 which was Gazetted vide Notification dated 16.03.1989. The Wakifs envisaged that property would be used for conducting Majlis, Jashans and other Ibadaat for the benefit of Shia community. Thereafter, the Wakifs, apart from themselves, nominated eight other persons, thereby formed a Mutawalli Committee to execute the Wakf Deed. The Wakf Deed specified that committee members can exercise their right of succession but they have not named their successors, and over the time, they all expired without nominating the successive Mutawalli Committee. Thereafter, after a gap of 41 years, the 2^nd respondent vide Proceedings dated 04.07.1994, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Waqf Act , 1954 (for short, ‘the 1954 Act’), constituted a Committee without specifying its term. The 10 individuals in the Committee constituted by the Wakf Board vide Proceedings dated 04.07.1994 also expired, thereby there was no Committee for Ibadat Khana. The committee under Sec 42 of 1954 Act is constituted only when there is a vacancy in the office of the mutawalli of a waqf and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of the waqf, or where the right of any person to act as mutawalli is disputed. This itself shows that the 10 members appointed in 1953 did not exercise their right to appoint their successors.

Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent vide Proceedings No. F.No.97/Hyd/C1/06 dated 05.10.2007 appointed one Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain Moosvi as President, Mutawalli Committee without mentioning the names of other members, stating him as a successor of the original committee as the proceeding was issued under Section 42 of the Wakf Act 1995 (for short, ‘the 1995 Act’) which comes into play only when there is continuous succession since 1953. But the 1994 proceeding issued as per Section 42 of the old Act comes into play only when there is vacancy and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the Wakf Deed or the right of any person to act as Mutawalli is disputed. Under Law when Section 42 of the 1954 Act (now Section 63 of the 1995 Act) has been pressed for constituting a Committee, there could not have been a committee under Section 42 of the 1995 Act complying by informing the changes to the Waqf Board from past more than 54 years. It is also alleged that 2^nd respondent after 41 years ie. in 1994, issued proceedings under Section 42 of the old Act which corresponds to Section 63 of the 1995 Act constituting a committee which means that there was vacancy in the office of mutawalli Committee and there was no one to be appointed under the waqf deed. Again after 13 years from 1994, in 2007, the 2^nd respondent surprisingly issued proceedings as per Section 42 of the new Act stating that from past 54 years, Mutawalli Committee was notifying the changes in the management to the 2nd respondent when a proceeding in past was issued under Section 42 of 1954 Act in 1994 when there was no one to be appointed as per the Waqf deed since all the original Mutawalli Committee members died without nominating their successors. It Is alleged by petitioner that the impugned proceeding is issued after a gap of 16 years from issuing the proceeding of 2007. It is also alleged that the impugned proceeding is issued without correctly stating the municipal numbers in which the subjec