Allahabad High Court
Hari Ram Gupta & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Wakfs & ... on 8 November, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45269 of 2004
Petitioner :- Hari Ram Gupta & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Wakfs & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.K. Gupta,Pankaj Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Parmatma Singh,Prakash Padia,R.G. Padia,Sanjeev Singh
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
This matter had been taken up yesterday and we had heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The matter was posted for today to enable the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State to respond to the petition.
Heard Sri Anuj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.C.Dixit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
Sri V.C.Dixit, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 along with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to contend that the order impugned passed by the Additional District Magistrate is in furtherance of the enquiry that has been set-up in relation to the lease deeds which are in violation of the provisions referred to hereinabove. He therefore contends that the impugned order does not call for any interference.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties what we find is that the impugned notice/order proceeds to call upon the tenants who are the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 not to deposit the rent that is being paid to the petitioners and to deposit it with the District Wakf Office in the Collectorate.
The impugned order dated 20.07.2014 states that some enquiry is being conducted in relation to the status of the property which is wakf property and the lease deeds that have been executed inducting the tenants violate the provisions of law. No details or material is available either from a reading of the impugned order or from the sketchy counter affidavit on record.
The petitioners have come up saying that this interim arrangement of deposit of rent by the Additional District Magistrate is without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the order has been passed without notice and opportunity and without there being any order of the Board.
Responding to these allegations in the writ petition the respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit through the Assistant Survey Commissioner Wakf and in paragraph nos.12 and 13 it has been asserted that it was in order to avert any financial loss to the wakf property that this arrangement has been made. It has also been stated that the matter has been referred to the Wakf Board for decision which is still awaited.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the Wakf Board has taken any decision and even otherwise no order of the Wakf Board has been challenged in the present writ petition. Apart from this, it is also evident that violation of principles of natural justice is manifest as no notice or opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order. Consequently, after having gone through the provisions of Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, we do not find any authority in the respondent no. 2 to have proceeded on his own in imposing such conditions without there being any material on record to indicate that the Board had issued any such directions. Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act does not give any independent power to the respondent no. 2 and is dependent upon any direction of the Wakf Board. Consequently in the circumstances indicated above, so far as the present dispute, which is confined only to the impugned order dated 20.07.2004, is concerned has to be answered in favour of the petitioners as the order does not appear to be within the jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate to have made the arrangements on the facts of the present case. The impugned order dated 20.07.2004 is therefore quashed. The writ petition is allowed without prejudice to any other proceedings that may be pending or may have been finalized in accordance with law under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 or otherwise. No order as to costs
Order Date :- 8.11.2017
R./
