Back
High Court Delivers Knockout Blow to Waqf Board's Land Grab Attempt
In a decisive ruling, the has quashed an order by the that sought to expand waqf property boundaries. Justice Deepak Khot , delivering the judgment on , in Smt. Khalida Bee and Others vs. and Others (Writ Petition No. 5788 of 2012), held that the Board's Chairman lacks the authority to unilaterally amend waqf registrations under , without the collective decision of the full Board. This verdict safeguards private land ownership against overreach.
Roots of the Revenue Record Rift
The dispute centered on land in Survey Nos. 290 (0.20 hectares) and 292 (0.10 hectares) in village Mohammadpura, partially recorded as waqf in a 1989 notification (Annexure P/1). The rest was held by private owners, including the petitioners' predecessor-in-title. Smt. Khalida Bee and others purchased the non-waqf portions via registered sale deeds in 2010 and 2011 (Annexures P/7 and P/8).
Trouble brewed when, on , the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the issued an order (Annexure P/15) on the Chairman's instructions, invoking Section 41 to include the petitioners' purchased land into the existing waqf. This followed an application by private respondents (Nos. 3-6), with note-sheets showing only Chairman's sanction, no Board resolution. The petitioners challenged this via writ under , arguing jurisdictional overstep.
Petitioners' Fiery Assault on Authority
The petitioners' counsel hammered home procedural lapses: - Section 41 empowers the Board —a multi-member body under —to amend waqf registers, not the Chairman alone or via CEO proxy. - No preliminary survey under (appointing a Survey Commissioner) was conducted, a prerequisite for waqf notifications. - Revenue records from showed only limited "Purani Kabren Masjiden Kabristan" entries, not blanket waqf claims. - The 1989 notification covered tiny portions; expanding without fresh survey or Board action was void.
They stressed the order was , challengeable directly in High Court, bypassing Waqf Tribunal suits under .
Board's Counter: Chairman's Word is Board's Law?
Respondents countered that the Chairman's dictate equated to Board action, with ERP records allegedly showing sanction (though unproven). They invoked , arguing waqf disputes must go to the Tribunal under , and cited 1989 notification plus old revenue entries for legitimacy. As media reports echoed, the Board framed it as routine registration upkeep.
Unpacking the Jurisdictional Jigsaw
Justice Khot meticulously dissected the Waqf Act.
Section 41
states:
"The Board may direct a Mutawalli to apply... or may itself cause the Waqf to be registered or may at any time amend the register of Waqf."
The "Board" is a collective (Chairperson plus elected/nominated members per Section 14), not a solo act. Note-sheets confirmed only Chairman's nod—no Board meeting or resolution.
The court distinguished
Rashid Wali Beg
, noting it applies to valid waqf disputes, not null orders. Drawing from
, it affirmed
's plenary power to strike jurisdictionally flawed orders, overriding alternative remedies. No new
survey meant no basis for amendment. External reports aligned, highlighting the ruling's focus on
"Chairman alone lacked jurisdiction without Board approval."
Court's Cutting Quotes That Seal the Deal
-
"From bare perusal of the provision of law, it is clear that the Board consist of several members... therefore, the order communicating the dictate of the Chairman of the Board cannot be said to be an order passed by the Board."
-
"The order passed without jurisdiction is
[and] can be set-aside under
of the Constitution of India."
-
"If such notification has not been issued by the State Government, then the Board cannot adopt a different method by invoking powers under Section 41 to declare or register the land to be a Waqf property."
Verdict Victory: Order Obliterated, Path Cleared for Tribunal
"The impugned order dated
Annexure P/15 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed."
This clears the petitioners' titles but leaves room for respondents 3-6's stayed Tribunal suit (post- rejection). Practically, it mandates Board consensus for amendments, curbing executive overreach in waqf matters. Future cases may see stricter scrutiny of "Chairman dictates," bolstering property rights while upholding statutory surveys— a balanced win for due process.
