Syed Shah Ismail Hussaini vs Karnataka State Board Of Wakf And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1917 Kant

                           1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.200013 OF 2021


BETWEEN

SYED SHAH ISMAIL HUSSAINI
S/O SYED SHAH ARIFULLA
HUSSAINI,
OCC.HEREDITARY SAJJADA/
MUTAWALLI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
DARGA HAZRAT SYED CHANDA
HUSSAINI R.A, POST.GOGI VILLAGE,
TQ.SHAHAPUR, YADGIR DIST 585223
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AMEETH KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
 SRI GANESH S. KALABURG AND SRI DESHPANDE,
ADVOCATES)


AND

1.     KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKF
       BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
       NO.6, DARUL-AWKAF, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560052.

2.     THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       KARNATAKA STATE BOARD
       OF WAKFS NO.6, DARUL-AWKAF,
       CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560052.
                              2



3.   THE WAKF OFFICER
     DISTRICT WAKF OFFICE,
     NEAR RTO, CHITTAPUR
     ROAD, YADGIR-585202.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 &R3)

    THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.83(9) OF WAKF ACT 1995
AMENDMENT ACT 2013 R/W SEC. 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-J AND TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.04.2021 PASSED BY THE WAQF TRIBUNAL,
KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION NO.5/2020 BY UPHOLDING THE
RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS HEREDITARY
MUTAWALLI OF DARGA HAZRAT SYED CHANDA HUSSAINI R.A.
POST: GOGI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR AT ANNEXURE-A
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON   06.02.2023 COMING   ON   FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

The above revision petition is filed under Section

83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, read with Section 115 of

the Civil Procedure Code, for the following reliefs:

"a) Set aside the order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the respondent No.2, in the interest of justice and equity. The copy of which is at Annexure-J.

b) To set aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi in application No.05 of 2020 by upholding the right of the

petitioner herein as Hereditary Mutawalli of Darga Hazrat Syed Chanda Hussaini R.A. Post: Gogi, Tq: Shahapur, Dist: Yadgir, to meet the ends of justice. The certified copy of which is at Annexure-A."

2. The petitioner filed an application under

Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, to set aside the order

dated 24.07.2020, passed by the second respondent

and to declare/adjudicate that the applicant is the

Hereditary Mutawalli. It is the case of the petitioner,

who is the applicant before the Waqf Tribunal that

Dargah Hazarath Syed Shah Jalaluddin Hussaini @

Hazrat Syed Chanda Hussaini is notified as a Waqf

institution in Gazette Notification No.KTW/

2012/ASR/74 dated 16.04.1974 at Serial No.21 of

Shahapur Taluka. That in Column No.6 of the said

notification dated 16.04.1974, the name of the great

grandfather of the applicant namely, Syed Ismail

Hussaini is mentioned as Mutawalli and further in

Column No.12, it is mentioned that the said office of

Mutawalli is by Custom/Hereditary.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that

after the demise of his great grandfather, his

grandfather by name Noor-e-Alam-Hussaini, filed an

application to the first respondent for his hereditary

rights of Mutawalli as per the customs of the Waqf and

by order dated 19.09.1996, he was appointed as a

Hereditary Mutawalli of the said institution.

Thereafter, after the lifetime of his grandfather, the

father of the petitioner filed an application to appoint

him as a Hereditary Mutawalli, but, the first

respondent by order dated 29.02.2012, appointed the

father of the petitioner as Mutawalli for a period of 3

years instead of Hereditary Mutawalli. Thereafter, the

father of the petitioner again approached the first

respondent by submitting the requisite documents

i.e., Shijra, Waqf Deed, Muntakhab, etc., in support of

his contention and requested for consideration of his

claim as a Hereditary Mutawalli. Accordingly, the first

respondent by order dated 22.01.2014, appointed the

father of the petitioner as Hereditary Mutawalli.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that

his father died on 28.08.2017 and after the demise of

his father, the petitioner approached the first

respondent to appoint him as a Hereditary Mutawalli

of the said institution. The first respondent by order

dated 19.12.2017, appointed the petitioner as

Mutawalli for a period of 3 years instead of appointing

him as a Hereditary Mutawalli. The petitioner gave a

representation vide letter dated 17.10.2018, to the

third respondent to consider his claim for Hereditary

Mutawalliship. Accordingly, the third respondent sent

a letter dated 17.10.2018, to the first respondent to

consider the request of the petitioner in view of

Section 42 of the Waqf Act and to appoint the

petitioner as a Hereditary Mutawalli. Since the claim of

the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner was

constrained to file W.P.No.204965/2019. This Court,

vide order dated 27.01.2020, disposed off the said

writ petition and directed the first respondent to

consider the representation of the petitioner within 8

weeks from the date of the said order. The second

respondent vide its order dated 24.07.2020, rejected

the application filed by the petitioner for appointing

him as a Hereditary Mutawalli. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner filed Application No.5/2020 before the Waqf

Tribunal.

5. The respondents have entered appearance

before the Waqf Tribunal, filed their statement of

objections and contested the case of the petitioner.

The petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P13. However, DW.1 has not been

cross-examined and the respondents have not

adduced any evidence. The Waqf Tribunal framed 3

points for consideration and by its order dated

30.04.2021, rejected the application filed by the

petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present revision

petition is filed.

6. The respondents have entered appearance

in the present proceedings and the first respondent

has filed its statement of objections.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar

Deshpande appearing for the petitioner contends that:

i. The great grandfather, grandfather and the

father of the petitioner having been appointed as a

Hereditary Mutawalli, the petitioner also ought to have

been appointed as a Hereditary Mutawalli;

ii. The finding of the Waqf Tribunal is required to

be set aside in view of the various notifications issued

by respondent Nos.1 and 2;

iii. The order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the

Chief Executive Officer (for short 'CEO') of the first

respondent that the claim of the applicant/petitioner

regarding Hereditary Mutawalliship is not supported by

producing cogent documents is ex facie, liable to be

set aside having regard to the orders dated

19.09.1996 and 22.01.2014, wherein, the ancestors

of the petitioner were appointed as Hereditary

Mutawallis after scrutinizing the relevant documents

after scrutinizing the relevant documents.

8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri P.S.Malipatil

appearing for respondent No.1 justifies the order

passed by the first respondent as well as the Waqf

Tribunal and contends:

i. The family of the petitioner having approached

the Land Tribunal for grant of lands, the said act of

claiming property being contrary to the Waqf Act,

disentitles the petitioner to claim Hreditary

Mutawalliship;

ii. The Waqf is a public institution and the office

of the Mutawalli is to safeguard the property of the

Waqf and the same cannot be used to personal gain;

9. In support of his contentions, he relies on

the following judgments:

1. The Karnataka Board of Waqf by its Secretary vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.1,

2. Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya & Anr. Vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors.2

3. Karnataka Board of Waqfs vs. State of Karnataka3

10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet

Kumar Deshpande in response to the submissions

made by learned counsel Sri P.S.Malipatil, sought to

ILR 2000 KAR 1859/ 2000(3) KLJ 602

2019 (6) SCC 91

ILR 1996 KAR 3566

distinguish the judgments relied on and further relies

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Kondiba Rama Papal alias Shirke (dead)

by his heirs and LRs and Another vs. Narayan

Kondiba Papal4.

11. I have considered the submissions made by

both the learned counsel and perused the material on

record including the records of the Waqf Tribunal. The

questions that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Waqf Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?

2. Whether the petitioner has been able to prove his claim for Hereditary Mutawalliship?

3. Whether the relief claimed by the petitioner in Application No.5/2020 before the Waqf Tribunal is liable to be granted?

AIR 1991 SC 1180

12. The Notification dated 16.04.1974, issued

by the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs (Ex.P1;

Annexure-A to the Petition) discloses that at Serial

No.21, the name of the Waqf is Chanda Hussain Darga

(Sunni) Gogikohana and at Column No.12, as to how

the Waqf is administered, it is mentioned as

Custom/Hereditary.

13. The order bearing No.KTW/MSC/87/GBA/

94-95, Bengaluru dated 19.09.1996, (Ex.P2;

Annexure-B to the petition) which are the proceedings

of the Karnataka Board of Waqf, Bengaluru, reads as

follows:

"For the reasons stated in the preamble and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1954, the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, hereby appoint Sri Noor-e- Alam Hussaini S/o Syed Shah Ismail Hussaini, as one of the three Muthawalli against vacancy created due to expiry of Janab Syed Ismail Hussaini to manage the day- to-day affairs of Dargah Hazrath Syed Shah Jalaluddin @ Chanda Hussaini, Gogi Village, Shahpur Taluk, Gulbarga Dist., during the pleasure of the Board as Hereditary Muthawalli."

14. The order bearing No.KBW/APT/88/YDG/

10-11 dated 29.02.2012, (Ex.P3; Annexure-D in the

petition) discloses that the Karnataka State Board of

Waqfs appointed Sri Syed Shah Arifullah Hussaini S/o.

Noor-e-Alam Hussaini as Mutawalli for a period of 3

years. The proceedings of the Karnataka State Board

of Waqfs, (Ex.P4; Annexure-E to the petition)

discloses that pursuant to the order dated

29.02.2012, wherein, Sri Syed Shah Arifullah Hussaini

was appointed as a Mutawalli for a period of 3 years,

a representation dated 03.02.2020 was made by the

applicant to appoint him as a Hereditary Mutawalli and

that the matter was placed before the Waqf Board in

its meeting, the Chairman and the Chief Executive

Officer were unanimously authorized to take

appropriate decision after verifying the documents

produced. Accordingly, in the order bearing

No.KBW/APT/38/YDG/2010-11, dated 22.01.2014, in

the preamble portion, the following is recorded:

"Accordingly, the Waqf Officer, District Waqf Office, Yadgir vide his letter dated 06.07.2013 has forwarded Shijra, Waqf Deed, muntakhab and the other relevant documents for the claim of his Hereditary Muthawalliship of the said institution and also requested to appoint Sri Syed Shah Arifulla Hussaini S/o Syed Noor-e-Alam Hussaini as Hereditary Muthawalli of the said institution.

The matter was placed before the Board in its meeting held on 12.12.2013 vide Sub.No.6(3). The Board has unanimously resolved to appoint Sri. Syed Shah Arifullah Hussaini S/o Syed Noor-e-Alam Hussaini Buzurg as Hereditary Mutawalli of Dargah Hazarath Syed Shah Jalaluddin, Chanda Hussaini, Gogi Viliage, Shahapur taluk, Yadgir District as said Muthwalli has justified his claim placing Shijra, Wakf Deed, Muntakab and other relevant documents. "

(emphasis supplied)

15. The operative of the said order dated

22.01.2014, reads as follows:

"In view of the facts mentioned in the preamble and as per the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf hereby appoints Sri Syed Shah Arifullah Hussaini S/o. Syed Noor-e-Alam Hussaini Buzurg as Hereditary Muthawalli/Sajjada Nasheen to Dargah Hazarath Syed Shah Jalaluddin, chanda Hussaini, Gogi Village, Shahapur Taluk, Yadgir District."

      16.   A     copy     of       the      order      bearing

No.KTW/APT/38/YDG/2010-11,                dated     19.12.2017,

(Ex.P5; Annexure-F to the petition) discloses that the

petitioner has made an application for appointing him

as a Hereditary Mutawalli after the demise of his

father on 28.08.2017. Pursuant to the application,

public notice dated 21.10.2017, was issued calling for

objections/suggestions. Further, it is forthcoming

from the preamble portion of the said order dated

19.12.2017, that the Waqf Officer of the District Waqf

Office at Yadgir, vide letter dated 04.11.2017, while

forwarding the Mahazar dated 25.10.2017, informed

that no objections/suggestions were received to the

said public notice and requested the office to appoint

the applicant as the Hereditary Mutawalli. Pursuant to

the same, the matter was placed before the

Administrator, who accorded his approval on

14.12.2017, to the proposal of the District Waqf

Officer, Yadgir district. However, in the operative

portion of the order dated 19.12.2017, it is mentioned

that the petitioner has been appointed as a Mutawalli

for a period 3 years.

17. While considering the representation of the

petitioner to appoint him as a Mutawalli and pursuant

to the directions issued by this Court in

W.P.No.204965/2019, an enquiry was conducted by

the CEO of the first respondent.

18. The Enquiry Officer found that the family

members of the applicant/petitioner had filed

applications for grant of occupancy rights in their

favour and succeeded for grant of occupancy rights.

It is further observed that the act of the family

members of the applicant is contrary to the Waqf Act

as they are Gazette Notified Mutawallis and they are

only a manager/care taker of the institution, being a

Mutawalli and they are not supposed to make a claim

before the Land Tribunal. The Enquiry Officer placed

reliance on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of the Karnataka Board of Waqfs3

It is further observed that while the applicant was

appointed as a Mutawalli, the file was referred to the

Chief Law Officer, Karnataka State Board of Auqaf,

Bengaluru for opinion and it is opined that

approximately 492 acres of the property is attached to

the said Dargah and so far the status of the property

is not known and hence a conditional order to be

issued.

19. It is in the said circumstances, an approval

for appointment of applicant as a Mutawalli for a

period 3 years was passed. Further, the Waqf Board

imposed a condition that if any alienation by way of

sale, gift or any mode, it is the duty of the Mutawalli

to see that the property is brought to the name of the

institution within a period of one year. The Enquiry

Officer further recorded a finding that the applicant

has failed to protect the Waqf property during his

tenure as a Mutawalli. After recording the

aforementioned, at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the

order dated 24.07.2020, it is noticed as follows:

"16. That, Mohammedan Law does not recognize any right of inheritance to the office of Muthawalli (Mulla on principles of Mohammedan Law, Ninth Edition {1990}), but office may became hereditary by custom. Such a custom however opposed to general law, if at all the claim of the applicant is that he is Hereditary Muthawalli he supported his case on producing a cogent document and supported by strict proof. In present claim of the applicant he has to produce the Waqfnama (Deed) which he was not produced during the enquiry.

17. That, in this junction if at all I will accept the claim of the applicant it may be detrimental to the interest of the Waqf and it may create a hurdle to recover the Waqf Property."

(emphasis supplied)

20. It is clear from the aforementioned that

CEO of the first respondent, vide his order dated

24.07.2020, has recorded a categorical finding that

the office of Mutawalli may be hereditary by custom

and the same is required to be supported by

producing cogent documents and that in the present

case, the petitioner/applicant has to produce the

Waqfnama (Deed), which has not been produced. The

said finding is contrary to the material on record,

inasmuch as, in the preamble portion of the order

dated 22.01.2014 of the first respondent, it is clearly

recorded that Shijra, Waqf Deed, Muntakhab and

other relevant documents for the claim of Hereditary

Mutawalliship of the father of the petitioner was

noticed and hence, the father of the petitioner was

appointed as a Hereditary Mutawalli. Hence, the said

order dated 22.01.2014, is clearly erroneous and

contrary to the material on record.

21. In the order dated 24.07.2020, the Chief

Executive Officer - second respondent, framed the

following issues:

"a. Whether the applicant proves that he is entitled for appointment as a Hereditary Mutuwalli to Dargah Hazrath Syed Chanda Hussaini Gog Village, Taluk Shahpur District Yadgir ?

b. Whether appointment order No.KBW/APT/38/YDG/2010-11 dated 19.12.2017 shall be interfered?

22. Having framed the aforementioned issues,

the second respondent recorded its findings and

issues 'a' and 'b' were answered in the negative. The

second respondent has recorded a finding that the

applicant has not stated as to when the Waqf came

into existence and as to how many generations have

passed up to the great grand father of the applicant.

It has further recorded that the applicant has not

produced the wakfnama to show that the wakf

intended for the office to devolve through a practice of

hereditary succession. The said finding being contrary

to the material available on record is liable to be

interfered with.

23. The judgments referred to by both the

learned Counsel are considered as under:

23.1 In the case of The Karnataka Board of

Waqf by its Secretary1 this Court was considering

the correctness of the order passed by the Land

Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, which had

granted occupancy rights to the Applicant. In the said

case, it was held that the property being a Waqf

property cannot be granted in favour of Kazi since

Kazi is only a Superintendent or Manager and has no

power to claim the property independently as that of

the Wakf. The said judgment will not aid the case of

the Respondents as in the present proceedings the

question, whether any property is liable to be granted

to the Petitioner, is not under consideration.

     23.2    In   the    case    of   Aliyathammuda

Beethathebiyyappura         Pookoya2      the    Hon'ble

Supreme Court considering the scope of revisional

jurisdictional of the High Court against an order of the

Wakf Tribunal as contemplated under Section 83(9) of

the Wakf Act, 1995, has held as follows:

"12. It is well settled that ordinarily, while revisional jurisdiction does not entitle the High Court to interfere with all findings of fact recorded by lower Courts, the High Court may correct a finding of fact if it has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, is grossly erroneous such that it would result in miscarriage of justice, or is otherwise not according to law (see the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78). Importantly, the scope of such revisional jurisdiction is wider when the High Court is vested with the power to examine the legality or propriety of the lower Court's order under the statute from which the revisional power arises. In such a situation, the High Court may also examine the correctness of findings of fact, and reappraise the evidence (see Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, (1988) 3 SCC 131). It is in this perspective that the argument of the appellants must be considered."

(emphasis supplied)

Further, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court also has held as follows:

"22. It can be concluded from the above discussion that a person claiming a customary right to succeed to the office of mutawalli would have to show that the waqif intended for the office to devolve through a practice of hereditary succession. In the absence of any express directions in the waqfnama to this effect, the claimant would have to show that such practice has been in existence throughout the history of the

trust, and not merely for a few generations, such that the waqif's intention that the office should be hereditary can be presumed. The burden of proof would be higher with respect to a public waqf, such as the suit waqf in the instant case, than a family trust."

23.3 In the case of Karnataka Board of

Waqfs3 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as

follows:

"13. With regard to the legal position of the Gazette publication of the Wakf property, it has to be clarified here that the Gazette notification is conclusive proof as to the ownership of the properties of the Wakf, unless the same was challenged and decree obtained in a civil suit as contemplated under Section 6(1) of the said Act. In the absence of any declaratory decree thereto, as against the publication of list of Wakfs in the Gazette notification, the properties listed therein in the list of Wakfs is construed in law to be belonging to the Wakf. It is nobody's case before the Respondent No. 2 - Land Tribunal that any decree or decrees in a suit/s was/were obtained by anybody."

The said case3 will not aid the case of the

Respondents, inasmuch as, in the present proceedings

the only claim of the Petitioner as a Heriditory

Muthavalli is being considered and not any claim to

the property.

23.4 In the case of Kondiba Rama Papal v.

Narayan Kondiba Papal the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held "once the custom is judicially

recognized, it is not required to be independently

proved in subsequent cases".

24. As noticed at para 20 above, it is

forthcoming from the order dated 22.01.2014 that the

same was passed after the necessary documents like

Shirja, Waqf Deed, Muntakhab and other relevant

documents which were placed on record and the

father of the Petitioner had justified his claim. It is

further forthcoming, as noticed in para 12 above, that

the Notification dated 16.04.1974 discloses the Waqf

as custom/hereditary. Hence, for the purpose of

AIR 1991 SC 1180

considering as to whether the Petitioner is required to

be appointed as a Hereditary Mutavalli, there is

sufficient material to accept the claim of the

Petitioner.

25. With regard to the contention that the

family members of the petitioner have filed

applications for grant of occupancy rights and the said

act, wherein, they seek that the property of the Waqf

is as their own property, when they are only the

manager/care taker of the institution and that the said

property has been attached to the Dargah and the

status of the property is not known, for the purpose of

considering as to whether the petitioner is required to

be appointed as a Hereditary Mutawalli, the said

aspects are not relevant. Further, if the petitioner or a

member of his family is claiming for grant of

occupancy rights in their personal capacity, it is open

to the respondents to oppose such claim in the said

proceedings and also to challenge such orders as was

the fact situation in the case of the Karnataka Board

of Waqf1.

26. In the event the petitioner is not

safeguarding the properties of the Waqf, it is open to

the respondents to take action in that regard by

resorting to the provisions of the Waqf Act or any

other law that may be applicable. It is also relevant to

note that the first respondent, can impose suitable

conditions for safeguarding the property of the Waqf.

The aspect of imposition of conditions is also

forthcoming from the order dated 19.09.1996, passed

in the proceedings of the first respondent, wherein,

the great grandfather of the petitioner had been

appointed as a Mutawalli subject to certain terms and

conditions.

27. In that view of the matter, it is necessary

that finding of the first respondent and the Wakf

Tribunal that the petitioner has failed to prove his

claim by producing sufficient materials, is liable to be

interfered with. However, the matter is required to be

remanded to the first respondent for considering

imposition of suitable conditions while passing the

order for appointment of the petitioner as a Hereditary

Mutawalli. Hence, the questions framed for

consideration are answered in the affirmative.

28. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The revision petition is partly allowed;

ii. The order dated 30.04.2021, passed in Application

No.5/2020 by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal,

Kalaburagi, is set aside;

iii. The order dated 24.07.2020, passed by the

Enquiry Officer Chief Executive Officer, Karnataka

State Board of Auqf, Bangalore, (Annexure-J to

the writ petition; Ex.P13 before the Tribunal) is

set aside;

iv. The Application No.5/2020 filed by the petitioner

before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Kalaburagi, is

partly allowed to the extent ordered herein.

v. It is hereby declared that the petitioner/applicant

is the Hereditary Mutawalli of the Dargah

Hazarath Syed Shah Jalaluddin Hussaini @ Hazrat

Syed Chanda Hussaini R.A., Post: Gogi, Tq:

Shahapur, Dist: Yadgir, subject to conditions that

may be imposed by the first respondent;

vi. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for

imposition of suitable conditions as it deems fit;

vii. The conditions be imposed within three months

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order;

No costs.

SD/-

JUDGE

Srt