MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Waqif’s Intentions Must Prevail in Deciding Mutawalliship: Calcutta High Court

11 October 2024 2:13 PM

By: sayum


Calcutta High Court in Sk. Hozra Ahmed & Ors. v. Moinur Laskar & Ors. (C.O. 3146 of 2022) quashed the decision of the Waqf Tribunal, which had earlier set aside the Waqf Board’s resolution regarding the appointment of a Mutawalli (trustee) for a Waqf property. The Court directed the Waqf Board to reconsider the issue of Mutawalliship in accordance with the Waqf deed and after hearing all interested parties.

The case involved a Waqf property in Mouza-Thanamakhua, Howrah, established through a Waqfnama (deed) by Amcharrudin Laskar in 1895. The deed specified that after his death, his wife could reside on part of the property, but no heirs could claim ownership. After the demise of the original Mutawalli, Dewan Laskar, villagers formed a committee to manage the Waqf property, and the Waqf Board enrolled the property as E.C. No. 15095, appointing Rehan Ali Khan as Mutawalli.

In 2019, the Waqf Board resolved to form a committee to manage the property, but the Tribunal set aside this decision following objections from descendants of the original Waqif (founder). The petitioners, challenging the Tribunal’s ruling, sought to uphold the Waqf Board’s resolution.

The key issue was whether the descendants of the Waqif had any claim to the Mutawalliship of the Waqf property, given the clear provisions of the Waqfnama that no heirs could claim rights.

The High Court observed that the Waqfnama explicitly stated that none of the Waqif’s successors had any right over the property, except for Dewan Laskar, who was permitted to appoint a Mutawalli but did not do so before his death. As a result, any claim by the descendants was without merit.

The Court criticized the Tribunal for focusing on issues of hereditary succession, despite the Waqfnama’s clear intention to exclude successors from claiming rights over the property. It further noted that the Waqf Board’s resolution to appoint a committee was legal, although it had expired by the time of the judgment.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De ruled that the Waqf Tribunal’s order was flawed because it ignored the Waqif’s intention as expressed in the Waqfnama. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision and directed the Waqf Board to resolve the issue of Mutawalliship within eight weeks, giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard.

The Court made it clear that the Waqf Board must adhere to the terms of the Waqfnama and the relevant legal principles when reconsidering the appointment of the Mutawalli.

The Calcutta High Court quashed the Waqf Tribunal’s order and instructed the Waqf Board to re-examine the issue of Mutawalliship, ensuring that the original Waqif’s intentions, as laid out in the Waqfnama, are respected.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Sk. Hozra Ahmed & Ors. v. Moinur Laskar & Ors.

Latest Legal News