Iftekhar Ahmed vs The Board Of Auqaf & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1326 Cal

   (16)
21.03.2022

(p.jana) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CO No. 3606 of 2019

Iftekhar Ahmed

-versus-

The Board of Auqaf & anr.

Mr. Sumit Kumar Ray, Mr. Nayeemuddin Munshi, Mr. Munshi Asiq Elahi, ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. Abu Siddique, ... for the Board of Wakfs.

The revisional application under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India is directed against the

judgment and order dated July 29, 2019 passed by

the Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal in OA No. 11 of

2018.

The Board by its resolution dated January 28,

2010 appointed Mohammad Mukhtar Hussain @

Mukhtar Ali, the father of the petitioner herein as

the Mutawalli of the Moulana Md. Sardar Ali Waqf

Estate. The said resolution was confirmed on

February 25, 2010.

Shoaib Ahmed, the opposite party no. 2

herein, challenged the said resolution and

confirmation thereof in O.A. No. 18 of 2010 before

the Waqf Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the

resolution appointment of Mukhtar Hussain as the

Mutawali as the said Waqf Estate.

The said Mukhtar Hussain again applied

before the Board for his appointment as Mutawali

of the said Waqf Estate. The Board by its

resolution dated January 17, 2018 which was

confirmed on February 15, 2018 appointed the

opposite party no. 2 as Mutawalli of the said Waqf

Estate and rejected the prayer of said Mukhtar

Hussain on the grounds that he was removed from

the office of the Mutawali being found guilty of

misuse of Waqf revenue, misappropriation of Waqf

property and he was also outsider.

The said Mukhtar Hussain challenged the

said resolution of the Board before the Waqf

Tribunal in the connected original application but

he expired during the pendency of the said

proceeding before the Tribunal and on his death

his son, the petitioner herein was added in the said

proceeding.

Mr. Galib learned advocate for the Board

submits that on the death of Mukhtar Hussain the

proceeding before the Tribunal was abated as such

the petitioner cannot maintain the present

revisional application.

Mr. Sumit Ray, learned advocate for the

petitioner submits that Mukhtar Hussain not only

applied for his appointment as Mutawali of the

said Waqf Estate but also he challenged the

appointment of opposite party no. 2 as Mutawali

on the ground that case of encroachment of Waqf

property is pending against him but the Tribunal

although has found that there are inconsistencies

in the resolution appointing the opposite party no.

2 as Mutawali but did not deal with the said issue.

He further submits that the petitioner has

already applied for his appointment as the

Mutawali of the said Waqf Estate, he prays that in

the event the petitioner is found to be not entitled

to challenge impugned judgment and order of the

Tribunal the Board may be directed to consider his

said application.

Mr. Galib responding to the said submission

of Mr. Ray submits that the prayer of the petitioner

cannot be considered without compromising the

pious wish of the Waqif which can be gather from

the terms of the deed of Waqf and to substantiate

his such submission Mr. Galib refers to the

clauses of the said deed of Waqif.

Heard learned advocate for the parties and

perused the materials on record.

The father of the petitioner applied for his

appointment as Mutawali for the said Waqf Estate

and being dissatisfied with the resolution of the

Board rejecting his such prayer he approached the

Tribunal.

It is rightly submitted by Mr. Galib that on the

death of the father of the petitioner the proceedings

before the Tribunal gets abated, addition of the

petitioner in the said proceeding is of no

consequence.

The petitioner, therefore, cannot maintain the

present revisional application.

However, the Board is obliged to dispose of

the application pending before it filed by the

petitioner for his appointment as Mutawali of the

said Waqf Estate, consideration of the said

application of the petitioner on merit is beyond the

scope of the present revisional application.

The Board is directed to dispose of the said

application of the petitioner appearing at page. 71

of the revisional application in accordance with

law.

C.O. 3606 of 2019 is disposed of with the

above terms, without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to

compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)