Allahabad High Court
Syed Shah Mohiuddin Ashraf vs Syed Sultan Ashraf And 5 Others on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72407
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6557 of 2025
Syed Shah Mohiuddin Ashraf
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Syed Sultan Ashraf And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Syed Ahmad Jamal, Rakesh Chandra Tewari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Syed Aftab Ahmad, Narendra Chauhan, Raj Priya Srivastava, Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra Tewari and Shri Syed Ahmad Jamal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Shri Abhishek Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Shri Rakesh D. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Raj Priya Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
2. By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a report/recommendation dated 08.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.5- Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur, Kichaucha, Pargana- Bidhar, Tehsil- Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, recommending that the name of Syed Shah Mohiuddin Ashraf (the petitioner) be cancelled from the records of Nagar Panchayat as owner of the properties bearing Nos.181-8, 182-8, 183-8, 185-8, 186-8 and 187-8 ward- Makhdoonnagar, Nagar Punchayat, Ashrafpur, Kichaucha, Ambedkar Nagar and the name of Astana Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) @ Makhdoom Sahab be recorded. The recommendation was also to the effect that the decendents of Astana Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) @ Makhdoom Sahab should be recorded for looking after and managing the properties.
3. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur, Kichaucha passed an undated one word order "Sweekrit" on the said recommendation.
4. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.01 of 2020 against the aforesaid recommendation, which has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and the validity of the appellate order has also been challenged by this petition.
5. Briefly stated, facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are that on 15.04.2011, the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur had passed a recommendation for striking out the name of Syed Mohiuddin Ashraf in respect of the aforesaid properties and for entering the names of Sajjadanashin and Mutwalli was ordered to be recorded. This order was passed on the application of one Syed Inam Ashraf on this recommendation, the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat had passed an order on the same day stating that he had perused the record and was in complete agreement with the recommendation and ordered that Sajjadanashin and Mutwalli be recorded in the records in respect of the properties in dispute.
6. Although the aforesaid order was not challenged by any person and it attained finality, another application was submitted by Syed Nizam Ashraf and Others on 12.12.2018 stating that by means of a judgment and order dated 25.11.1976 passed in Case No.26 of 1975, the Civil Judge/ Waqf Tribunal, Faizabad had held that various properties relating to Makdoom Sahab are not Waqf properties and a notice to this effect was issued by U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board was cancelled. Syed Nizam Ashraf had sought mutation of names in furtherance of the order dated 25.11.1976 passed by the waqf Tribunal. Notice was issued to the concerned parties. Syed Shah Mohiunddin Ashraf (the petitioner) submitted his objections dated 28.02.2019 along with evidence.
7. The Executive Officer has recorded that numerous litigations have been held amongst the parties regarding the properties in dispute and their predecessor in interests, some of which are reported in AIR 1930 Awad 32, 1933 Awadh Weekly Notes 214 and 1935 Awadh Weekly Notes 415 and these are binding on the parties. By virtue of these judgments, it has been held that the offerings etc. of Mazar Makdoom Sahab belongs to the heirs of persons starting from Abdul Razak Nurul and coming up to Shah Niyamat Ashraf and there is no dispute regarding this.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this judgment was not property which is a subject matter of the present proceedings. The order records that a dispute regarding the management of properties of Astana Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) and other related properties arose and the properties were attached by means of an order dated 30.11.1972 passed by Pargana Magistrate, Tanda, Faizabad and a receiver was appointed on 24.11.1974. Pargana Magistrate passed an order holding that the property in dispute was in joint possession of the parties and the proceedings were closed accordingly and the property was released. Syed Shah Mohiuddin Ashraf (the petitioner) has filed an affidavit in Suit No.45 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambedkar Nagar stating that it has conclusively been decided in previous judicial proceedings that the Dargah in question does not belong to any Waqf and it is not a public property and it is a private property. A copy of the judgment dated 25.11.1976 passed in Case No.25/1975 was brought on record.
9. Various other litigations have been going on between the parties and their predecessors in interest regarding various properties relating to Astana Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh).
10. The petitioner had filed his objections claiming himself to be Sajjadanashin/Mutwalli of Sheikh Hazrat Makdoom Sahab and has claimed that the respondents had no concern with the properties. The respondents filed objections stating that the properties were being managed by a Committee of Management jointly.
11. The Executive Officer has referred to an affidavit filed by the petitioner in Suit No.44 of 2006 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambedkar Nagar stating that the Dargah in question is not a Waqf or public property and it is a private property. The Executive Authority does not dispute that the property is a private property.
12. In these circumstances, nobody can manage the property as a Mutwalli in absence of any Waqf.
13. The Executive Officer has further held that the father of the petitioner had filed a suit for injunction bearing Regular Suit No.340 of 1978 in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad for restraining the defendants from claiming themselves to be Sajjadanashin of the Dargah and from interfering in the plaintiffs performance as Sajjadanashin.
14. On 25.08.2024, this Court had passed an interim order in Writ Petition No.5486 (M/S) of 1981 whereby the defendants were also permitted the use of term Sajjadanashin for performing Urs.
15. The Executive Officer concluded that the property in question is not Waqf property and it belongs to the decendents of Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) and it is their private property.
16. The property is in joint possession and the management of the decendents of three Branches, each branch possessing one-third share. The Executive Officer recommended deletion of the name of Syed Mohiuddin Ashraf from the revenue records and for recording it as Astana Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) urf Makdoom Sahab. The Executive Officer further directed that the decendents Syed Makdoom Ashraf shall have the right to manage the properties.
17. This order was challenged by filing an Appeal No.01 of 2020 under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act which has been decided by means of a judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is also impugned in the petition.
18. In the aforesaid appeal, initially an inter order was passed on 24.10.2024 providing that the appellant-petitioner will manage the properties in question.
19. The order was challenged in Matters under Article 227 No.651 of 2025 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 17.02.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein it is inter alia observed that "thus, prima facie, the last line of the orders/report dated 08.11.2019 appears to be beyond the powers conferred in U.P. Municipalities Act. Similarly, the order of the Appellate Court wherein it empowers the appellant to manage the property as a mutwalli appears to be beyond jurisdiction vested in the authorities by virtue of the U.P. Municipalities Act."
20. This Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
21. The Appellate Court has held that the order of Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur, was passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and the order does not warrant any interference in appeal and it dismissed the appeal.
22. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the questions of mutation has already been decided by means of an order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Ashrafpur, Kichaucha on the recommendation of even date made by the Executive Officer, which has attained finality as it has not been challenged by any party. The Executive Officer had no power to review its order dated 15.04.2011. In these circumstances, the contrary order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Executive Officer/ Chairman of Nagar Panchayat are without jurisdiction.
23. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the interested persons were not impleaded in proceedings and, therefore, the order becomes bad in law.
24. The third ground of challenge submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the one word order "Sweekrit" is no order in the eyes of law as any order deciding valuable rights of the parties has to be supported by reasons justifying the order. A one word order passed without any reason is no order in the eyes of law.
25. Replying to the aforesaid submission, Shri Rakesh D. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the order dated 15.04.2011 had been passed without taking into consideration the earlier order passed by the Waqf Tribunal holding that the property in dispute is not a Waqf property. The judgment of the Waqf Tribunal, which has conclusively decided the property to be private property and not a Waqf property, has also attained finality. In these circumstances, no person can claim himself to be the mutwalli and to be entitled to manage the properties in such capacity.
26. In these circumstances, the Executive Officer has not committed any error or illegality in ordering the mutation of names on the basis of findings recorded by the Waqf Tribunal. He has further submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted by filing an affidavit that the property in question is not a waqf property and is a private property.
26. Section 147 of U.P. Municipalities Act provides as follows :-
"147. Amendment and alteration of list.
(1) The [Municipality or the Executive Officer authorized by it] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011, for 'Municipality'.] may at any time alter or amend the assessment list, -
(a) by entering therein the name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered or any property which has become liable to taxation after the authentication of the assessment list; or
(b) by substituting therein for the name of owner or occupier of any property the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property; or
(c) by enhancing the valuation of, or assessment on any property which [has become incorrectly valued or assessed or which, by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, has been incorrectly valued or assessed] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1987.]; or
(d) by re-valuing or re-assessing any property the value of which has been increased by additions or alterations to buildings; or
(e) where the percentage on the annual value at which any tax is to be levied has been altered by the [Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011, for 'Municipality'.] under the provisions of Section 136, by making a corresponding alteration in the amount of the tax payable in each case; or
(f) by reducing, upon the application of the owner- or on satisfactory evidence that the owner is traceable and the need for reduction established, upon its own initiative, the valuation of any building which has been wholly or partly demolished or destroyed, or
(g) by correcting any [Clerical, arithmetical or other apparent error ;] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1955.]
(2) Provided that [Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011, for 'Municipality'.] shall give at least one month's notice to any person interested of any alteration which the [Municipality or the Executive Officer authorised by it] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2011, for 'Municipality'.] proposes to make under clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) and of the date on which the alteration will be made.
(3) The provisions on sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 applicable to the obligations thereunder mentioned shall, so far as may be, apply to any objection made in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (2) and to any application made under clause (f) of sub-section (1).
(4) Every alteration made under sub-section (1) shall be authenticated by the signature or signatures of the person or persons authorized by Section 144 and subject to the result of an appeal under Section 160, shall take effect from the date on which the next installment falls due."
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities can act under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act for altering the list merely by substituting therein the name of the owner or occupier of any property in case an applicant has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property. After passing of the order dated 15.04.2011, neither any succession nor transfer of property has taken place and, in these circumstances, authorities had no power to pass any fresh order of mutation. He has submitted that there is no power of reviewing order dated 15.04.2011 and in fact the impugned order had been passed ordering mutation of names without taking note of the earlier order dated 15.04.2011 and, therefore, it has not even an order of review.
28. Section 147(1)(a) provides for entering the name of any person who ought to have been entered and Section 147(1)(g) of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides for correction of list by correcting any clerical, arithmetical or other apparent error also. In case a list has been prepared containing entries that are in conflict with the finding recorded by the competent court of law, in the present case the Waqf Tribunal/ Civil Judge, the list would suffer from such an apparent error, as may be corrected in exercise of powers conferred by Section 147(1)(g). When the Waqf Tribunal has held that the property does not belong to any Waqf and is a private property of Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) @ Makhdoom Sahab, the property would belong to his decendents and in case their name is not entered, the same could be entered in exercise of powers conferred under Section 147(1)(a) and in case any error has been committed in this regard, the same can be corrected by exercising powers under Section 147(1)(g).
29. Therefore, I am not convinced with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed without jurisdiction.
30. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat has passed one word un-reasoned order, in this regard it is relevant to note that even in the earlier order dated 15.04.2011, detailed reasoning were mentioned in the recommendations of the Executive Officer running into six pages. The Chairman had merely made an endorsement at the bottom of the order stating that the he has perused the record and was in agreement with the recommendations and accepted the same. The one word order passed by the Chairman stating "Sweekrit" implies that the Chairman has gone through the recommendations and has accepted the same. Acceptance of well reasoned recommendations in these circumstances, cannot be said to be an un-reasoned order in exercise of its power of superintendence.
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Nirmala Devi v. Upper Commissioner Nagar Nigam, Allahabd (2011) 6 All LJ 242 wherein this Court held that there is no power of review of an order passed under Section 213(1)(b) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, which is analogous to the provisions contained in Section 147 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. In that case, the Court had specifically observed that "Clause (g) of sub-section (1) Section 213 contemplates correction of any clerical, arithmetical or other apparent error in the assessment list. The present is not case of correction of clerical, arithmetical or other apparent error rather it was a case of deciding the calim of two set of persons who were claiming their mutation on the basis of the respective sale deeds."
32. The facts of the present case are different from the facts of Nirmala (supra) as in the present case, it already stands decided by a judgement of a Waqf Tribunal that the property is not a Waqf property and it is a private property and it is undisputed that a Dargah established by Hazrat Syed Makdoom Ashraf Jahangir Samnani (Rahmatulla Alleh) @ Makhdoom Sahab and the properties attached to it are private properties and his decendents are entitled to the properties. In these circumstances, it appears that the Executive Officer has merely corrected an error which is apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the order is referable to the powers conferred by Section 147 (1)(a) and (g) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. More particularly, when the petitioner has himself admitted on the oath that the property is not a Waqf property.
32. Although the detailed submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel appearing from both the sides regarding the merits of respective claim, this Court is purposely refraining from going into those as the instant proceedings is arising merely out of an order passed under Section 147, which specifically provides that the list shall be corrected by entering the names of persons who have become liable to taxation. This entry of names merely creates a liability and it does not decides any rights in respect of ownership of the property. Therefore, while holding that the authorities have not committed any error or illegality in the amending the list and deciding the liability for making payment of property tax, the question of rights is being left open which could be decided in appropriate proceedings which are said to be pending between the parties in competent courts of law.
33. The petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
November 13, 2025
-Amit K-
