Allahabad High Court
Athar Jaidi @ Dadu vs U.P. Shiya Central Waqf Board And 3 ... on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196036
Court No. - 1
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 102 of 2023
Revisionist :- Athar Jaidi @ Dadu
Opposite Party :- U.P. Shiya Central Waqf Board And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. This revision was initially filed as a writ petition, but later on was converted into a revision pursuant to an order passed by another Bench of this Court.
3. Under challenge in the present proceedings is an order dated 9.5.2023, passed by the U.P. Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow and a further direction has been sought to restrain the respondents from interfering in the management of the revisionist in Imambara Ansariyan and Masjid Khajoor Wali, Registration No. I-733, Saharanpur.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the plaintiff-revisionist had instituted Waqf Case No. 49 of 2022 before the Waqf Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow for setting aside an order dated, passed by the Waqf Board and the Tauliyat Certificate dated 1.4.2022 issued by the Executive Officer. A further relief was sought against the defendant no.4, who is arrayed as respondent no.4 in the present revision for restraining him from interfering in the management of the property of the Waqf.
5. It is stated that an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed , in which several grounds were raised by him. It is stated that ground nos. 10,12, 13 and 17 were not considered by the Waqf Tribunal while dismissing the application for temporary injunction.
6. It is contended that the order of the Board was defective inasmuch as the meeting of the Board held with regard to the management of the Waqf, was attended by only five persons but six persons had signed the order. It is further stated that Tauliyat Certificate dated 1.4.2022 issued in favour of the Danish Abdi was issued by the Administrative Officer/Executive Officer of the Board and not by the Board itself. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph 8 of a judgment passed in the case of Ali Akhtar Quadri Vs. State of Bihar, passed by a Bench of Jharkhand High Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the powers of the Executive Officer are provided in Section 38 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and it is well within the authority of the Executive Officer to exercise powers and discharge such duties as pertain only to the administration of the property of the Waqf for which he has been appointed and exercise powers and discharge those duties under the direction, control and supervision of the Board. It has further been contended that in the present case, the Waqf in question is Waqf Alal-Khair and not Waqf Alal-aulad and, therefore, it is contended that in exercise of powers under Section 63 of the Waqf Act, the Board has appointed Danish Abdi as Mutwalli after taking into account all relevant consideration. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it has been admitted by the revisionist in the previous petition filed before this Court being Writ-C No. 2861 of 2021 that was decided on 15.3.2021 that he is pairokar of the Waqf. It is stated that this Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petition holding that the petitioner cannot have any cause of grievance as he claims to be only a pairokar. It is stated that by the impugned order, it has been held that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that after 2016, the Board has exercised any powers of management with regard to the waqf or that any election of Mutwalli was done by the general consensus of the local Muslim community. It is stated that the Tribunal has also noticed that the revisionist could not show any document that could evince he was appointed as manager with regard to the waqf.
8. Having perused the record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent appears to be correct.
9. The operative art of the order of the Tribunal while rejecting the application for temporary injunction is as follows:
"वादी ने ग-6 प्रार्थना पत्र में यह आधार लिया है कि प्रश्नगत वक्फ का प्रबन्धन वह 2016 से करता चला आ रहा है परन्तु 2016 से बोर्ड के द्वारा उसे कभी भी उपरोक्त वक्फ का प्रबन्धन नहीं दिया गया न ही स्थानीय मुसलमानों ने आम सहमति से उसका चुनाव किया। वादी स्वयं को मैनेजर/पैरोकार कह कर आ रहा है परन्तु पत्रावली पर तौलियत से सम्बन्धित कोई दस्तावेज नहीं है। पत्रावली पर बोर्ड की ओर से भेजी गयी नोटिस 21/03/2022 तिथि बढ़ाने की संलग्न है, साथ ही आदेश पत्रिका ग-12/2 पर भी वादी का हस्ताक्षर है। अतः वादी का यह कहना कि उसे सुना नहीं गया प्रथम दृष्टया गलत प्रतीत होता है।
जहाँ तक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांकित-15.03.2021 का प्रश्न है माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के द्वारा मात्र बोर्ड को तौलियत के सम्बन्ध में नियुक्ति करने हेतु आदेशित किया गया है। वादी के पक्ष में कोई आदेश नहीं है।
इसके अतिरिक्त प्रतिवादी सं०-1 के द्वारा सूची ग-20 में दाखिल प्रपत्र ग-22 से स्पष्ट है कि बोर्ड के प्रशासनिक अधिकारी के द्वारा 19.04.2022 को वादी के विरूद्ध एफ.आई.आर. दर्ज कराने हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र भेजा गया था। वादी इस प्रकार न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष स्वच्छ हाथों से नहीं आया है।
इस प्रकार वादी का प्रथम दृष्टया वाद नहीं बनता हैं, सुविधा का संतुलन भी उसके पक्ष में नहीं है। अस्थायी निषेधाज्ञा यदि वादी के पक्ष में जारी नहीं की गयी तो उसे किसी प्रकार की अपूर्णनीय क्षति नहीं होगी। इस प्रकार ग-6 प्रार्थना पत्र निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश
वादी का प्रार्थना पत्र ग-6 निरस्त किया जाता है।
पत्रावली वास्ते वादी साक्ष्य दिनांक- 27.06.2023 को पेश हो।"
10. In the suit filed in the year 2022, the revisionist has claimed the following relief:
"(अ) यह कि विपक्षी प्रतिवादी नं०-1 एवं 2 द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 31.03.2022 एवं विपक्षी नं०-3 के द्वारा जारी किया गया तौलियत प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 01.04.2022 को खण्डित/अपास्त किया गया है।
(ब) यह कि विपक्षी प्रतिवादी नं०-4 को प्रार्थी के उपरोक्त वक्फ नं०-I-733-सहारनपुर (वक्फ इमामबाड़ा अंसारियान व मस्जिद खजूर वाली) की वक्फ जायदांद के प्रबंधन में हस्तक्षेप करने से रोका जाए।
(स) यह कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षीगण से उपरोक्त मुकदमें का हर्जा-खर्जा दिलाया जाए।
(द) यह कि माननीय न्यायाधिकरण प्रार्थी के पक्ष में उपरोक्त अनुुतोष के अलावा जो समुचित अनुतोष समझे प्रार्थी को विपक्षीगण से दिलाए।"
11. In the aforementioned writ C No 2861 of 2021, on 15.3.2021, the following order was passed:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 (Chief Executive Officer, Shia Central Waqf Board, U.P. Lucknow) and the consequential letter dated 27.11.2020 issued by the respondent No.5 (Assistant Survey Commissioner, Waqf Saharanpur, District Saharanpur). The petitioner No.2 claims himself to be pairokar of Waqf No. T-733, Masjid Khajoor Wali and Chhota Emambara, Mohalla Ansariyan, Saharanpur. The impugned order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Shia Central Waqf Board, U.P. Lucknow, directing the District Magistrate/ Additional Waqf Commissioner, Saharanpur to ensure safety of Waqf property till arrangements are made by the Board.
Issuance of limited direction by the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 to protect the Waqf properties cannot be said to be a cause of grievance for the petitioner No.2 who claims to be only a pairokar. Therefore, no cause of action arose to the petitioners to file the present writ petition.
For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
It is, however, expected that the Board may be constituted expeditiously and necessary arrangements for management of Waqf properties, may be made expeditiously."
12. Perusal of paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgement in the case of Ali Akhtar Quadri cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist is with regard to power of the Board and authority of the Executive Officer to act under the direction of the Board. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate that the Executive Officer had no authority as alleged by him which he has failed to do. I have perused the minutes of the meeting of the Board that appears on page 47 and 48 of the petition which reflects that a management committee for the Waqf has been appointed by the Board for a period of two years.
13. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the revisionist was able to demonstrate any prima facie right before the Tribunal in support of his claim of the management of the Waqf that would merit grant of temporary injunction. The order of the Tribunal is justified and does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction.
14. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for and this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J)
