Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ahsan Ansari vs Waqf Mahal Umrao Begum Sahiba on 11 February, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

1 WP-4542-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4542 of 2014
AHSAN ANSARI
Versus
WAQF MAHAL UMRAO BEGUM SAHIBA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash

Lalwani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4532 of 2014
ASIF ANSARI
Versus
WAQF MAHAL UMRAO JAHAN BEGUM SAHIBA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash

Lalwani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 4.

WRIT PETITION No. 4548 of 2014
TOUSIF ANSARI
Versus
WAQF MAHAL UMRAO JAHAN BEGUM SAHIBA AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 2/18/2025
6:43:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

2 WP-4542-2014
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash
Lalwani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents 2
and 3.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 4.

WRIT PETITION No. 4549 of 2014
RIZWAN ANSARI
Versus
WAQF MAHAL UMRAO JAHAN BEGUM SAHIBA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash

Lalwani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents 2
and 3.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 4.

WRIT PETITION No. 4557 of 2014
SMT. NISHAT FATIMA
Versus
WAQF MAHAL UMRAO JAHAN BEGUM SAHIBA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash
Lalwani- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents 2
and 3.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 2/18/2025
6:43:38 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

3 WP-4542-2014
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the respondents 1 and 4.

ORDER

These petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 25.02.2014 contained in Annexure P-10 in writ petition No.4542/2014 (Ehsan Ansari v. Waqf Mahal and Others ) which is taken as a reference case for the purpose of referring the facts and annexures.

Petitioner's case is that on 29.12.2010, the Chief Executive Officer who was holding the post at the relevant time, after hearing the parties had reserved the case for passing orders. No orders were passed till 08.07.2013 when new incumbent to the post of Chief Executive Officer without hearing the rival parties and putting them to notice, decided the case on that day i.e. 08.07.2013 vide Annexure P-4.

It is submitted that thereafter when third Chief Executive Officer joined then on 30.09.2013 he decided that he has jurisdiction to take up the order of previous Chief Executive Officer dated 08.07.2013 in review, and passed order dated 30.09.2013 as contained in Annexure P-6. Thereafter final order on review was passed on 31.10.2013 as contained in Annexure P-

Petitioner's contention is that power of review is vested in the Chief Executive Officer in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Rules, 2000. Thus, it is submitted that since Rule 35 in clause (i) confers inherent power in order to prevent abuse the process of

Court, the Chief Executive Officer has rightly exercised his authority and passed orders on 31.10.2013. It is submitted that the said order was amenable

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

4 WP-4542-2014 to jurisdiction of challenge before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and could not have been set aside in an administrative order dated 25.02.2014, as is passed by the authorities of the State.

Thus, it is submitted that since the order dated 31.10.2013 had attained finality, therefore, there was no occasion for the state authority to pass an order dated 25.02.2014 which will amount to second review. Reliance is placed on judgment of Orissa High Court in Moti Dei v. Cuttack Bank Ltd. and Others, AIR 1964 Ori 185 and that of Karnataka High Court in the case o f Mangalabai v. The Songli Bank Ltd. and Others, ILR 2002 Kar 4601. Reading from paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, it is submitted that inherent power of review can be exercised at any point of time. Thus, it is submitted that the order dated 25.02.2014 is nullity and cannot be allowed to stand and that order needs to be quashed. In addition, Shri Lalwani places reliance on Rule 15 of the M.P. Wakf Rules, 2000.

Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, support the impugned order dated 25.02.2014 and submit that an order which is nullity and having been passed without jurisdiction by the previous Chief Executive Officer on 31.10.2013 cannot be allowed to stand and therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 25.02.2014. Counsel for the respondents also submit that Rule 35 of the MP Wakf Rules, 2000 is for the Tribunal and not for the Chief Executive Officer. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

5 WP-4542-2014 Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singh Ji and Arjun Singh Ji AIR 1970 SC 1273 wherein it is held that power of review is not an inherent power and power of review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.

Similarly reliance is placed on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 414 to submit that any dispute pertaining to wakf property must be decided by the Tribunal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Rule 15 of the MP Wakf Rules, 2000 deals with the manner of inquiry to be held by Chief Executive Officer. This matter has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.5939/2008 (Asif Ansari v. Waqf Mahal Umrao Jan and Another) and it is held that CEO under Section 54 of the Wakf Act has limited authority to enquire in regard to the extent of encroachment and pass orders.

A perusal of Rule 15 of the MP Wakf Rules, 2000 makes it clear that Chief Executive Officer has to prepare a case file containing following particulars:-

"(i) minute of proceedings;

(ii) report or information on which the proceeding has been started;

(iii) show cause notice and its reply;

(iv) evidence (oral and documentary) received at the enquiry; and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

6 WP-4542-2014

(v) order"

It does not confer for any power of review on the Chief Executive Officer. Similarly, Rule 35 of the MP Wakf Rule 2000 deals with procedure and power of the Tribunal and not that of Chief Executive Officer.

In the Wakf Act, 1995, the Chief Executive Officer is defined in Section 3 (d) and his authorities are mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 and Section 29 of the Act whereas Wakf Tribunal is defined in Section 3

(q) of the Act and it is to be constituted under Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 having jurisdiction in relation to that area. Thus, it is evident that Tribunal is a superior judicial body having authority vested in it in terms of the provisions contained in Section 83 of the Wakf Act to deal with the issue originating out of the disputes between the parties.

The Chief Executive Officer has not been conferred with any such judicial power therefore, the Rule 35 of the MP Wakf Rules, 2000 when read in conjunction with the provisions of the MP Wakf Act, makes it abundantly clear that the Chief Executive Officer has not been conferred with any inherent power. Therefore, when tested the impugned orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer on 30.09.2013 and 31.10.2013 exercising inherent power and usurping the jurisdiction to review the earlier order dated 08.07.2013 cannot be said to be in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the orders dated 30.09.2013 and 31.10.2013 and the consequential order dated 25.02.2014 are set aside. Similarly, the order dated 08.07.2013 having been passed behind the back of the parties by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6483

7 WP-4542-2014 the new Chief Executive Officer without giving opportunity to them, is also set aside.

The parties are relegated to appear before the concerned Chief Executive Officer at 11:00 AM on 27.02.2025 for which no separate notice be required. The Chief Executive Officer will initiate the proceedings from the stage when the case was reserved on 29.12.2010 and conclude the proceedings within a further period of forty-five days therefrom.

In the above terms, the writ petitions are disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE