Committee Masjid Meesa v. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wagq Board and others) whereby the reference init

recognition of its own committee of management, it challenged the order passed by the Board dated 14.11.2018 by filing a reference before the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow.

7. The respondent no.4 is represented by its alleged President Syed Hedayat Rasool and while filing the reference before the Waqf Tribunal it avered that the mosque which is the subject matter of the Waqf was constructed prior to the year 1970 and from the said time the affairs of the mosque was managed by Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab who was the then Pesh Imam. In an around the year 1985, the mosque was repaired and Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab being the Mutwalli continued to look after the affairs of the mosque during his life time up till the year

8. In an around the year 2010, while Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab was alive then with the consent of the people of the village, who had faith in Islam, a committee was constituted. The said committee in the year 2012 was represented by Hedayat Rasool, who was its President and since 2012 on wards the complete record of maintenance of the mosque, its expenditure etc. was also furnished with the reference filed before the Waqf Tribunal.

9. It was the case of the private respondent that they have been managing the affairs of the mosque and the Waqf Board while passing the order dated 14.11.2018 ignored the relevant facts and circumstances that the revisionist was not in control of the affairs of the mosque and while the committee of Hedayat Rasool continued to manage the affairs of the mosque but all these aspects were not considered by the Waqf Board.

10. It is stated that there were factual discrepancies in the order dated 14.11.2018 so much so that an inquiry report dated

25.05.2016 was also ignored. There was clear indications that the committee of the respondent no.4 had been in control of the affairs of the mosque and it also had the support of the local populace (Awaam). The possession, the control as well as the financial discipline relating to the affairs of the mosque was being handled by the respondent no.4 and this aspect was completely ignored by the Waqf Board while passing the impugned order.

11. As soon as the respondent no.4 became aware of the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential order dated 26.11.2018, the respondent no.4 preferred a reference before the Waqf Tribunal and also moved an application for interim relief. The Waqf Board after hearing the parties on the application for interim relief by means of order dated 01.10.2019 partly allowed the application for interim relief and its stayed the operation of the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential office memorandum dated 26.11.2018 which related to the appointment of the revisionist committee. However, it clearly stated that the order relating to the registration of the Waqf was not stayed. As a consequence, the dispute was confined only relating to the two rival committees one represented by the revisionist through its President Sadiq Ali whereas the other was represented by its President Syed Hedayat Rasool.

12. After the exchange of the pleadings, the matter came to be finally heard and decided by the Waqf Tribunal by means of order dated 17.10.2024 and while allowing the reference the orders dated 14.11.2018 its office memorandum dated

26.11.2018, order dated 25.02.2022 and the office memorandum dated 23.03.2022 were set aside.

13. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the revisionist has approached this Court and while attacking the order dated

17.10.2024, the counsel for the revisionist urged that the Tribunal has erred in failing to consider the applicability of Section 89 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provides an embargo that no suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any Act purporting to be done by the Board in pursuance of the Act and the Rules made thereunder until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing is delivered or left at the office of the Board stating a cause of action name and description and place to residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claimed.

14. It is urged that in view of the aforesaid stipulation, the respondent no.4 could not file the reference without first serving a notice in terms of Section 89 of the Waqf Act and thus the order passed by the Tribunal is patently erroneous. It is further urged that the order dated 14.11.2018 whereby the committee of the revisionist was recognized for a period of three years came to an end on 13.11.2021 and as such all proceedings thereafter automatically came to an end hence, challenge to the order dated 14.11.2018 had become futile and till then the respondent no.4 had not even challenged the subsequent order which only came to be assailed by moving an application for amendment on 18.10.2022. Once the order dated

14.11.2018 had become redundant with passage of time and in absence of any material to indicate that the respondent no.4 had any right to continue, it was not open for the Waqf Tribunal to have granted the relief to the respondent which is per se against the material on record and in absence of any averment, evidence and finding recorded by the Waqf Tribunal, granting the relief to the respondent is patently erroneous.

15. It is urged that unless and until there was a specific finding recorded by the Tribunal to indicate that the respondent no.4 committee had any rights to continue to manage the affairs of the mosque, granting the remedy after the lapse of three years from 14.11.2018 is an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, accordingly its order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained and that too at the behest of a third party, thus the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

16. Shri Faizal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has vehemently urged that it is the revisionist who is the stranger to the mosque and the Waqf. It is urged that Waqf Board itself committed a grave error in passing the order dated

14.11.2018 and the consequential order dated 26.11.2018 on the basis of sect.

17. He has further submitted that in the faith of Islam, there is no scope for any sect. An attempt was made to recognize a sect by the Waqf Board by passing the impugned order and as such the same was void abnitio and, in such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in staying the operation of the order dated 14.10.2018. Once there was no challenge to the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 14.11.2018 and 26.11.2018, then it was not open for either the revisionist or the respondent no.2 to pass any fresh order which came to be assailed by the respondent no.4 by amending the reference.

18. This aspect was considered by the Waqf Tribunal and it found that once the order dated 14.11.2018 and 26.11.2018 had been stayed and the proceedings were pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the Board and the revisionist could not have indirectly achieved on object which they failed to achieve directly and thus the order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 recognizing a fresh committee after the initial lapse of three years was also bad and was consequently set aside. The Waqf Tribunal also noticed that since the order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 were passed during the pendency of the proceedings while earlier order dated 14.11.2018 was stayed, hence the subsequent order were void and it also directed notice to be issued to the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector for answering charges for contempt of the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has placed strong reliance on the report dated 25.05.2016 which has been brought on record by the respondent no.4 alongwith his counter- affidavit filed in the instant revision. It was specifically submitted that in the said report dated 25.05.2016, it was noticed that the affairs of the mosque was being administered by the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool with Jamsher Khan as its Secretary.

20. It was also pointed out that the Inspector had clearly noticed that the alleged committee headed by Sadiq Ali had moved an application for registering the said property as Waqf on the basis of creating a sect despite the fact that they did not have the confidence of the local populace (awaam) nor they had the possession. The said report noticed the possession and control over the Waqf property, by the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool, hence it recommended that the committee represented by Syed Hedayat Rasool be considered as it had the larger support of the populace compelled to allege committee headed by Sadiq Ali.

21. It is thus submitted that without considering the said report the Waqf Board had passed the order dated 14.10.2018 which was per se illegal and it is, in the aforesaid circumstances, that the respondent no.4 had filed the reference wherein all the issues raised came to be considered and decided by the Waqf Tribunal which cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, hence the instant revision deserves to be dismissed.

22. Learned counsel for the Waqf Board has submitted that the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is bad; inasmuch as it has issued notice of contempt against the Chairman and the Inspector of Waqf which is beyond jurisdiction apart from the fact that the Waqf Board that passed the impugned order based on the material on record and after hearing the parties in the aforesaid circumstances a challenge to the order passed by the Waqf Board at the behest of the respondent no.4 was not justified.

23. It has further been pointed out that the Waqf Board had earlier filed a petition under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 wherein the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal dated

17.10.2024 was challenged. However, the said petition was dismissed with liberty and in the aforesaid circumstances once a challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 had been turned down by the court, then a fresh challenge by the present revisionist is not maintainable and the revision deserves to be dismissed.

24. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

25. At the outset, it may be noticed that as far as the challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 at the behest of the Waqf Board which is said to have been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 vide order dated 26.03.2025 is concerned, it has no impact on the instant revision which has been filed by the revisionist.

26. Apparently, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the petition under Article 227 was filed by the Waqf Board only against a limited portion of the order dated 17.10.2024 whereby a direction was issued by the Waqf Tribunal for issuing contempt notice against the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector of the Waqf Board. The said petition came to be dismissed as the counsel for the Waqf Board could not demonstrate before the court that any notice had been issued to the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector in pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2024 and the petition at that stage appeared to be premature. Hence, liberty was granted to the Waqf Board to challenge the order in case if any notices are issued in furtherance of the order dated 17.10.2024. That limited challenge cannot prevent the revisionist herein to challenge the order dated 17.10.2024 whereby the order dated 14.10.2018 consequential order dated 26.11.2018 and subsequent order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 have been set aside by the Tribunal, moreover the aforesaid orders affect only the revisionist and the respondent no.4 and not the Waqf Board.

27. The content and texture of the orders set aside by the Waqf Tribunal is in-context with a dispute primarily between the revisionist and the respondent no.4 who both stake right and claim management of the Waqf Meesa. This dispute between the two rival factions of committee of management is altogether different to a part of the order passed by Tribunal dated

17.10.2024 wherein it directed notices to be issued for contempt against the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector.

28. Significantly, this revision was filed on 31.01.2025 much prior to the petition filed by the Waqf Board challenging part of the order. In case if the Waqf Board challenged part of the order which was only confined to the issue of notice for contempt against the office bearer of the Waqf Board and that was withdrawn with liberty to file at an appropriate stage cannot impair the rights of the present revisionist or has any impact on the merits of the instant revision, accordingly to that extent the submissions of the counsel for the respondent Board as well as the respondent no.4 that the challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 in petition under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 has been turned down and so the instant revision is not maintainable, is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly turned down.

29. Now the issue that requires consideration in light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties indicate that there is primarily a dispute between two factions claiming right to manage the mosque and its affairs and the registration of the Waqf-2911.

30. In this regard, the record reveals that undisputedly the Mosque Meesa has been in existence since 1970 but the fact remains that it was recorded as a Waqf only vide order dated

14.11.2018. What is significant to note that vide order dated

14.11.2018 the Waqf Board not only registered the mosque as a Waqf-2911 but also recognized the committee for managing the affairs of the Waqf comprising of nine members headed by Sadiq Ali. Even though the Waqf Tribunal upon the reference filed by the respondent no.4 had allowed the application for interim relief vide its order dated 01.10.2019, but its effect would be that only the order relating to giving recognition to the committee headed by Sadiq Ali had been stayed but it clearly stated that the order relating to the registration of the Waqf is not stayed, hence the effect would be that the mosque which have been registered as a Waqf continued throughout. This was the effect of the order dated 01.10.2019 but while passing the final order dated 17.10.2024, the Tribunal has set aside the order dated 14.11.2018 in its entirety which also includes that part of the order by which the mosque was registered as a Waqf.

31. From the perusal of the copy of the reference filed by the respondent no.4, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.3 would indicate that the challenge was made in its entirety to the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential office memorandum dated 26.11.2018. Later by an amendment, the subsequent order dated 25.02.2022 and the consequential order dated 2303.2022 was also sought to be challenged and the same has been considered and allowed by the Waqf Tribunal. Thus, as of today, as the said orders have been set aside then that part of the order passed by the Waqf Board by which the mosque was registered as a Waqf also stands set aside.

32. It is in this context that the counsel for the revisionist had advanced his submission that where an order passed by the Waqf Board in exercise of its power under the Waqf Act is under challenge then such a proceeding cannot be countenanced by Waqf Tribunal without ensuring compliance of Section 89 of the Waqf Act.

33. In this regard, the counsel for the revisionist had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Waqf Qabristan Unnao through Mutawalli, Nafees Khan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow [Civil Revision No.32 of 2019] decided on 11.03.2019.

34. In this context, it may be seen that admittedly, the respondent no.4 nor the Waqf Board has raised any challenge that the order passed by the Waqf Board registering the mosque as a Waqf was not valid and that the Tribunal has erroneously set aside that part of the order as well.

35. This Court finds that primarily the dispute which was raised in the reference before the Waqf Tribunal was primarily between the two rival committee of managements, one represented by the revisionist through Sadiq Ali as its President and the other represented by Syed Hedayat Rasool as its President. The reason given by the Tribunal that while passing the order dated 14.11.2018 the Waqf Board has taken note of two religious sects, which was not permissible in Islam, hence the order was bad and that there were reports to the extent that a committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool was incharge and in control of the mosque and its affairs, hence this aspect was not considered by the Board which prompted the Tribunal to set aside the order.

36. It further went ahead to notice that the Tribunal had stayed the operation of the order dated 14.10.2018 and its consequential order on 01.10.2019 but during the pendency of the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal the Board passed fresh orders dated 25.02.2022 and 23.03.2022 which were also bad. However, what the Tribunal failed to notice that in case if there were two rival factions claiming rights to administer either the mosque or the Waqf, the fact still remains that it was necessary to first record a findings that which committee undisputedly had been in control and then it was also required to determine as to how one committee got out of control and the other came in control.

37. As per the record which is made available before this Court it appears that both the committees had put in their respective claims and the Waqf Board while passing the order dated

14.10.2018 recorded that a committee of nine members headed by Sadiq Ali as its President shall look after the affairs of the Waqf/Mosque for a period of three years. This order of

14.11.2018 came to stayed by the Tribunal on 01.10.2019 i.e. almost after a year but there is no finding recorded in the order dated 01.10.2019 or in the final order dated 17.10.2024 that the committee of management as headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool had been in control. Merely by staying the operation of the order dated 14.11.2024, does not necessarily give rise to any corollary to state that the committee of management headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool gains credence or is accepted unless there was a specific direction either by the Board or the Tribunal and moreover there was no interim arrangement made by the Tribunal while its stayed the order dated 14.11.2018 vide its order dated 01.10.2019.

38. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 was specifically put to a query as to when for the first time the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool came incharge of the affairs of the mosque, what was the term of their committee, when it expired and when the term was either extended or a fresh committee was constituted for a fresh tenure and what was the material filed by the respondent no.4 in this regard before the Waqf Tribunal. Though it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.4 that they had filed all the material before the Waqf Tribunal but could not indicate any specific date regarding coming in control of the affairs of the mosque including the term as well as if at all there was a term then when it came to an end and whether there was any extension of such term of the committee or a fresh committee was constituted. From the perusal of the order dated 17.10.2024, it does not indicate that any such material was considered by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.10.2024.

39. Taking a holistic view of the matter, there appears to be a committee who has been given recognition for a period of three years headed by Sadiq Ali which apparently came to an end in 2021 and then there was a fresh order passed the Waqf Board on 25.02.2022 and a consequential office order dated

23.03.2022. In contradistinction to the aforesaid, there was no reference to any such order giving credence to the committee of the respondent no.4 except a reference made in the report of the Waqf Inspector dated 25.06.2016 which did not find favour with the Board while passing the order dated 14.11.2018.

40. Apparently, what requires to be determined is whether a committee had the recognition of the Waqf Board either before or after its registration a Waqf. If so then when such a committee came into existence who were its office bearers and what was the term of such a committee and whether the members who were initially the office bearers of the committee have continued till date.

41. In case if the submission of the counsel for the respondent no.4 is noticed, it would be seen that as per his contention the committee came into being in the year 2012 but what was the composition of that committee what was the term of that committee has not been indicated.

42. This would give rise to only two situation:- (i) Either the term of a committee was till eternity, then there should have been pleading to that effect and its composition ought to have been stated with sufficient particularity as to who were its members and whether from the date of inception till the date of filing of the reference, they were the same members or if there was change in some office bearers/members of such a committee, then when any change took place and how in this place the new members came to be inducted; (ii) the other situation could be that committee had a specific tenure then again there had to be clear pleadings to this effect and what was the term of such a committee, when its expired and whether the term of new committee was extended or a new committee was reconstituted with the name of the members but again there is no pleadings to this effect as reflected from the copy of the reference which have been brought on record.

43. Moreover, as per the revisionist their term which commenced from 14.10.2018 for a period of three years came to an end in the year 2021 and vide subsequent order dated

25.02.2022, a fresh order was passed by the Board and according to the said order the term of the committee headed by Sadiq Ali as its President was for a period of five years with effect from 14.11.2021 which would come to an end sometime in November 2026. On the other hand, since there is no mention as to when the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool was constituted and what was its term, hence this area turned grey in the given circumstances.

44. In the aforesaid background if the submission of the counsel for the respondent no.4 is accepted that they had filed the requisite material before the Wafq Tribunal, then in such a case, either way the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained as, if, there was material as suggested by the counsel for the respondent no.4 but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal then the order is rendered suspectable to be set aside. In case there was no such material, then also the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained as the Tribunal has adverted to certain material as reflected from its reasoning recorded in the order regarding creation of sect which was not proved and did not have the basis of legitimate material duly proved in accordance with law before the Tribunal.

45. Needless to say that the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal are held in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as indicated in Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The issue regarding the conflicting claim of the two rival committees is to be determined in light of the observations made herein above as well as on the basis of the evidence available on record as led by the parties but it appears that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law as the material and evidence before it does not appear to have been tendered and proved.

46. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the board of the Waqf Tribunal who shall reconsider the issue regarding the conflicting claim of the two committees including record proper evidence regarding the registration or not of a Waqf and its consequences vis-a-vis the rights of the two rival committees and the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board to pass any order as well as in the given circumstances whether there would be any applicability of Section 89 of the Waqf Act.

47. The parties shall appear before the Waqf Tribunal on 29th of April, 2025 and the Waqf Tribunal shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties re-determine the disputes in light of the observations made by this Court in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

48. The parties are also directed to co-operate with early hearing and an endeavour would be made by the Tribunal to decide the matter preferably within a period of eight months of the date, the parties appear before it and it shall also be open for the Tribunal to consider the respective plea raised by the parties including an issue of interim arrangement of the maintenance of mosque. The same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in respect thereto.

49. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 4.4.2025

recognition of its own committee of management, it challenged the order passed by the Board dated 14.11.2018 by filing a reference before the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow.

7. The respondent no.4 is represented by its alleged President Syed Hedayat Rasool and while filing the reference before the Waqf Tribunal it avered that the mosque which is the subject matter of the Waqf was constructed prior to the year 1970 and from the said time the affairs of the mosque was managed by Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab who was the then Pesh Imam. In an around the year 1985, the mosque was repaired and Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab being the Mutwalli continued to look after the affairs of the mosque during his life time up till the year

8. In an around the year 2010, while Maulvi Bashir Khan Sahab was alive then with the consent of the people of the village, who had faith in Islam, a committee was constituted. The said committee in the year 2012 was represented by Hedayat Rasool, who was its President and since 2012 on wards the complete record of maintenance of the mosque, its expenditure etc. was also furnished with the reference filed before the Waqf Tribunal.

9. It was the case of the private respondent that they have been managing the affairs of the mosque and the Waqf Board while passing the order dated 14.11.2018 ignored the relevant facts and circumstances that the revisionist was not in control of the affairs of the mosque and while the committee of Hedayat Rasool continued to manage the affairs of the mosque but all these aspects were not considered by the Waqf Board.

10. It is stated that there were factual discrepancies in the order dated 14.11.2018 so much so that an inquiry report dated

25.05.2016 was also ignored. There was clear indications that the committee of the respondent no.4 had been in control of the affairs of the mosque and it also had the support of the local populace (Awaam). The possession, the control as well as the financial discipline relating to the affairs of the mosque was being handled by the respondent no.4 and this aspect was completely ignored by the Waqf Board while passing the impugned order.

11. As soon as the respondent no.4 became aware of the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential order dated 26.11.2018, the respondent no.4 preferred a reference before the Waqf Tribunal and also moved an application for interim relief. The Waqf Board after hearing the parties on the application for interim relief by means of order dated 01.10.2019 partly allowed the application for interim relief and its stayed the operation of the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential office memorandum dated 26.11.2018 which related to the appointment of the revisionist committee. However, it clearly stated that the order relating to the registration of the Waqf was not stayed. As a consequence, the dispute was confined only relating to the two rival committees one represented by the revisionist through its President Sadiq Ali whereas the other was represented by its President Syed Hedayat Rasool.

12. After the exchange of the pleadings, the matter came to be finally heard and decided by the Waqf Tribunal by means of order dated 17.10.2024 and while allowing the reference the orders dated 14.11.2018 its office memorandum dated

26.11.2018, order dated 25.02.2022 and the office memorandum dated 23.03.2022 were set aside.

13. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the revisionist has approached this Court and while attacking the order dated

17.10.2024, the counsel for the revisionist urged that the Tribunal has erred in failing to consider the applicability of Section 89 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which provides an embargo that no suit shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any Act purporting to be done by the Board in pursuance of the Act and the Rules made thereunder until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing is delivered or left at the office of the Board stating a cause of action name and description and place to residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claimed.

14. It is urged that in view of the aforesaid stipulation, the respondent no.4 could not file the reference without first serving a notice in terms of Section 89 of the Waqf Act and thus the order passed by the Tribunal is patently erroneous. It is further urged that the order dated 14.11.2018 whereby the committee of the revisionist was recognized for a period of three years came to an end on 13.11.2021 and as such all proceedings thereafter automatically came to an end hence, challenge to the order dated 14.11.2018 had become futile and till then the respondent no.4 had not even challenged the subsequent order which only came to be assailed by moving an application for amendment on 18.10.2022. Once the order dated

14.11.2018 had become redundant with passage of time and in absence of any material to indicate that the respondent no.4 had any right to continue, it was not open for the Waqf Tribunal to have granted the relief to the respondent which is per se against the material on record and in absence of any averment, evidence and finding recorded by the Waqf Tribunal, granting the relief to the respondent is patently erroneous.

15. It is urged that unless and until there was a specific finding recorded by the Tribunal to indicate that the respondent no.4 committee had any rights to continue to manage the affairs of the mosque, granting the remedy after the lapse of three years from 14.11.2018 is an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, accordingly its order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained and that too at the behest of a third party, thus the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

16. Shri Faizal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has vehemently urged that it is the revisionist who is the stranger to the mosque and the Waqf. It is urged that Waqf Board itself committed a grave error in passing the order dated

14.11.2018 and the consequential order dated 26.11.2018 on the basis of sect.

17. He has further submitted that in the faith of Islam, there is no scope for any sect. An attempt was made to recognize a sect by the Waqf Board by passing the impugned order and as such the same was void abnitio and, in such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in staying the operation of the order dated 14.10.2018. Once there was no challenge to the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 14.11.2018 and 26.11.2018, then it was not open for either the revisionist or the respondent no.2 to pass any fresh order which came to be assailed by the respondent no.4 by amending the reference.

18. This aspect was considered by the Waqf Tribunal and it found that once the order dated 14.11.2018 and 26.11.2018 had been stayed and the proceedings were pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the Board and the revisionist could not have indirectly achieved on object which they failed to achieve directly and thus the order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 recognizing a fresh committee after the initial lapse of three years was also bad and was consequently set aside. The Waqf Tribunal also noticed that since the order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 were passed during the pendency of the proceedings while earlier order dated 14.11.2018 was stayed, hence the subsequent order were void and it also directed notice to be issued to the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector for answering charges for contempt of the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has placed strong reliance on the report dated 25.05.2016 which has been brought on record by the respondent no.4 alongwith his counter- affidavit filed in the instant revision. It was specifically submitted that in the said report dated 25.05.2016, it was noticed that the affairs of the mosque was being administered by the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool with Jamsher Khan as its Secretary.

20. It was also pointed out that the Inspector had clearly noticed that the alleged committee headed by Sadiq Ali had moved an application for registering the said property as Waqf on the basis of creating a sect despite the fact that they did not have the confidence of the local populace (awaam) nor they had the possession. The said report noticed the possession and control over the Waqf property, by the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool, hence it recommended that the committee represented by Syed Hedayat Rasool be considered as it had the larger support of the populace compelled to allege committee headed by Sadiq Ali.

21. It is thus submitted that without considering the said report the Waqf Board had passed the order dated 14.10.2018 which was per se illegal and it is, in the aforesaid circumstances, that the respondent no.4 had filed the reference wherein all the issues raised came to be considered and decided by the Waqf Tribunal which cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law, hence the instant revision deserves to be dismissed.

22. Learned counsel for the Waqf Board has submitted that the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is bad; inasmuch as it has issued notice of contempt against the Chairman and the Inspector of Waqf which is beyond jurisdiction apart from the fact that the Waqf Board that passed the impugned order based on the material on record and after hearing the parties in the aforesaid circumstances a challenge to the order passed by the Waqf Board at the behest of the respondent no.4 was not justified.

23. It has further been pointed out that the Waqf Board had earlier filed a petition under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 wherein the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal dated

17.10.2024 was challenged. However, the said petition was dismissed with liberty and in the aforesaid circumstances once a challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 had been turned down by the court, then a fresh challenge by the present revisionist is not maintainable and the revision deserves to be dismissed.

24. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

25. At the outset, it may be noticed that as far as the challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 at the behest of the Waqf Board which is said to have been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 vide order dated 26.03.2025 is concerned, it has no impact on the instant revision which has been filed by the revisionist.

26. Apparently, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the petition under Article 227 was filed by the Waqf Board only against a limited portion of the order dated 17.10.2024 whereby a direction was issued by the Waqf Tribunal for issuing contempt notice against the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector of the Waqf Board. The said petition came to be dismissed as the counsel for the Waqf Board could not demonstrate before the court that any notice had been issued to the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector in pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2024 and the petition at that stage appeared to be premature. Hence, liberty was granted to the Waqf Board to challenge the order in case if any notices are issued in furtherance of the order dated 17.10.2024. That limited challenge cannot prevent the revisionist herein to challenge the order dated 17.10.2024 whereby the order dated 14.10.2018 consequential order dated 26.11.2018 and subsequent order dated 25.02.2022 and office order dated 23.03.2022 have been set aside by the Tribunal, moreover the aforesaid orders affect only the revisionist and the respondent no.4 and not the Waqf Board.

27. The content and texture of the orders set aside by the Waqf Tribunal is in-context with a dispute primarily between the revisionist and the respondent no.4 who both stake right and claim management of the Waqf Meesa. This dispute between the two rival factions of committee of management is altogether different to a part of the order passed by Tribunal dated

17.10.2024 wherein it directed notices to be issued for contempt against the Chairman and the Waqf Inspector.

28. Significantly, this revision was filed on 31.01.2025 much prior to the petition filed by the Waqf Board challenging part of the order. In case if the Waqf Board challenged part of the order which was only confined to the issue of notice for contempt against the office bearer of the Waqf Board and that was withdrawn with liberty to file at an appropriate stage cannot impair the rights of the present revisionist or has any impact on the merits of the instant revision, accordingly to that extent the submissions of the counsel for the respondent Board as well as the respondent no.4 that the challenge to the order dated 17.10.2024 in petition under Article 227 bearing No.1534 of 2025 has been turned down and so the instant revision is not maintainable, is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly turned down.

29. Now the issue that requires consideration in light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties indicate that there is primarily a dispute between two factions claiming right to manage the mosque and its affairs and the registration of the Waqf-2911.

30. In this regard, the record reveals that undisputedly the Mosque Meesa has been in existence since 1970 but the fact remains that it was recorded as a Waqf only vide order dated

14.11.2018. What is significant to note that vide order dated

14.11.2018 the Waqf Board not only registered the mosque as a Waqf-2911 but also recognized the committee for managing the affairs of the Waqf comprising of nine members headed by Sadiq Ali. Even though the Waqf Tribunal upon the reference filed by the respondent no.4 had allowed the application for interim relief vide its order dated 01.10.2019, but its effect would be that only the order relating to giving recognition to the committee headed by Sadiq Ali had been stayed but it clearly stated that the order relating to the registration of the Waqf is not stayed, hence the effect would be that the mosque which have been registered as a Waqf continued throughout. This was the effect of the order dated 01.10.2019 but while passing the final order dated 17.10.2024, the Tribunal has set aside the order dated 14.11.2018 in its entirety which also includes that part of the order by which the mosque was registered as a Waqf.

31. From the perusal of the copy of the reference filed by the respondent no.4, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.3 would indicate that the challenge was made in its entirety to the order dated 14.11.2018 and the consequential office memorandum dated 26.11.2018. Later by an amendment, the subsequent order dated 25.02.2022 and the consequential order dated 2303.2022 was also sought to be challenged and the same has been considered and allowed by the Waqf Tribunal. Thus, as of today, as the said orders have been set aside then that part of the order passed by the Waqf Board by which the mosque was registered as a Waqf also stands set aside.

32. It is in this context that the counsel for the revisionist had advanced his submission that where an order passed by the Waqf Board in exercise of its power under the Waqf Act is under challenge then such a proceeding cannot be countenanced by Waqf Tribunal without ensuring compliance of Section 89 of the Waqf Act.

33. In this regard, the counsel for the revisionist had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Waqf Qabristan Unnao through Mutawalli, Nafees Khan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Lucknow [Civil Revision No.32 of 2019] decided on 11.03.2019.

34. In this context, it may be seen that admittedly, the respondent no.4 nor the Waqf Board has raised any challenge that the order passed by the Waqf Board registering the mosque as a Waqf was not valid and that the Tribunal has erroneously set aside that part of the order as well.

35. This Court finds that primarily the dispute which was raised in the reference before the Waqf Tribunal was primarily between the two rival committee of managements, one represented by the revisionist through Sadiq Ali as its President and the other represented by Syed Hedayat Rasool as its President. The reason given by the Tribunal that while passing the order dated 14.11.2018 the Waqf Board has taken note of two religious sects, which was not permissible in Islam, hence the order was bad and that there were reports to the extent that a committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool was incharge and in control of the mosque and its affairs, hence this aspect was not considered by the Board which prompted the Tribunal to set aside the order.

36. It further went ahead to notice that the Tribunal had stayed the operation of the order dated 14.10.2018 and its consequential order on 01.10.2019 but during the pendency of the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal the Board passed fresh orders dated 25.02.2022 and 23.03.2022 which were also bad. However, what the Tribunal failed to notice that in case if there were two rival factions claiming rights to administer either the mosque or the Waqf, the fact still remains that it was necessary to first record a findings that which committee undisputedly had been in control and then it was also required to determine as to how one committee got out of control and the other came in control.

37. As per the record which is made available before this Court it appears that both the committees had put in their respective claims and the Waqf Board while passing the order dated

14.10.2018 recorded that a committee of nine members headed by Sadiq Ali as its President shall look after the affairs of the Waqf/Mosque for a period of three years. This order of

14.11.2018 came to stayed by the Tribunal on 01.10.2019 i.e. almost after a year but there is no finding recorded in the order dated 01.10.2019 or in the final order dated 17.10.2024 that the committee of management as headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool had been in control. Merely by staying the operation of the order dated 14.11.2024, does not necessarily give rise to any corollary to state that the committee of management headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool gains credence or is accepted unless there was a specific direction either by the Board or the Tribunal and moreover there was no interim arrangement made by the Tribunal while its stayed the order dated 14.11.2018 vide its order dated 01.10.2019.

38. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 was specifically put to a query as to when for the first time the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool came incharge of the affairs of the mosque, what was the term of their committee, when it expired and when the term was either extended or a fresh committee was constituted for a fresh tenure and what was the material filed by the respondent no.4 in this regard before the Waqf Tribunal. Though it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.4 that they had filed all the material before the Waqf Tribunal but could not indicate any specific date regarding coming in control of the affairs of the mosque including the term as well as if at all there was a term then when it came to an end and whether there was any extension of such term of the committee or a fresh committee was constituted. From the perusal of the order dated 17.10.2024, it does not indicate that any such material was considered by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.10.2024.

39. Taking a holistic view of the matter, there appears to be a committee who has been given recognition for a period of three years headed by Sadiq Ali which apparently came to an end in 2021 and then there was a fresh order passed the Waqf Board on 25.02.2022 and a consequential office order dated

23.03.2022. In contradistinction to the aforesaid, there was no reference to any such order giving credence to the committee of the respondent no.4 except a reference made in the report of the Waqf Inspector dated 25.06.2016 which did not find favour with the Board while passing the order dated 14.11.2018.

40. Apparently, what requires to be determined is whether a committee had the recognition of the Waqf Board either before or after its registration a Waqf. If so then when such a committee came into existence who were its office bearers and what was the term of such a committee and whether the members who were initially the office bearers of the committee have continued till date.

41. In case if the submission of the counsel for the respondent no.4 is noticed, it would be seen that as per his contention the committee came into being in the year 2012 but what was the composition of that committee what was the term of that committee has not been indicated.

42. This would give rise to only two situation:- (i) Either the term of a committee was till eternity, then there should have been pleading to that effect and its composition ought to have been stated with sufficient particularity as to who were its members and whether from the date of inception till the date of filing of the reference, they were the same members or if there was change in some office bearers/members of such a committee, then when any change took place and how in this place the new members came to be inducted; (ii) the other situation could be that committee had a specific tenure then again there had to be clear pleadings to this effect and what was the term of such a committee, when its expired and whether the term of new committee was extended or a new committee was reconstituted with the name of the members but again there is no pleadings to this effect as reflected from the copy of the reference which have been brought on record.

43. Moreover, as per the revisionist their term which commenced from 14.10.2018 for a period of three years came to an end in the year 2021 and vide subsequent order dated

25.02.2022, a fresh order was passed by the Board and according to the said order the term of the committee headed by Sadiq Ali as its President was for a period of five years with effect from 14.11.2021 which would come to an end sometime in November 2026. On the other hand, since there is no mention as to when the committee headed by Syed Hedayat Rasool was constituted and what was its term, hence this area turned grey in the given circumstances.

44. In the aforesaid background if the submission of the counsel for the respondent no.4 is accepted that they had filed the requisite material before the Wafq Tribunal, then in such a case, either way the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained as, if, there was material as suggested by the counsel for the respondent no.4 but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal then the order is rendered suspectable to be set aside. In case there was no such material, then also the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained as the Tribunal has adverted to certain material as reflected from its reasoning recorded in the order regarding creation of sect which was not proved and did not have the basis of legitimate material duly proved in accordance with law before the Tribunal.

45. Needless to say that the proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal are held in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as indicated in Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The issue regarding the conflicting claim of the two rival committees is to be determined in light of the observations made herein above as well as on the basis of the evidence available on record as led by the parties but it appears that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law as the material and evidence before it does not appear to have been tendered and proved.

46. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 17.10.2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter shall stand restored on the board of the Waqf Tribunal who shall reconsider the issue regarding the conflicting claim of the two committees including record proper evidence regarding the registration or not of a Waqf and its consequences vis-a-vis the rights of the two rival committees and the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board to pass any order as well as in the given circumstances whether there would be any applicability of Section 89 of the Waqf Act.

47. The parties shall appear before the Waqf Tribunal on 29th of April, 2025 and the Waqf Tribunal shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties re-determine the disputes in light of the observations made by this Court in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

48. The parties are also directed to co-operate with early hearing and an endeavour would be made by the Tribunal to decide the matter preferably within a period of eight months of the date, the parties appear before it and it shall also be open for the Tribunal to consider the respective plea raised by the parties including an issue of interim arrangement of the maintenance of mosque. The same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in respect thereto.

49. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 4.4.2025