Jameel Ahmad Naziri v. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow and six others)

1. Heard Shri Shamshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board is represented by Shri Farhan Habib learned counsel and Shir Faisal Ahmad Khan alongwith Mohd. Muballi Gussalam for the private respondent no.6.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Waqf Tribunal whereby the reference filed by the revisionist was rejected, as a consequence, the order of the Board dated 14.11.2019 in favour of the private respondent no.6 was affirmed as a consequence the respondent no.6 was recognized as Mutawalli for a period of three years with effect from12.01.2019.

3. This Matter has a prelude. The dispute actually arises regarding the status of the Mutawalli relating to Waqf Jama Masjid Jadeed No.2443- Azamgarh. As a fact Seven persons had purchased Plot No.1218 having an area of 523 links in village Newada, Post Amilo, District Azamgarh over which the Jama Masjid was constructed and the said seven vendors became joint Mutawallies.

4. It is also the case that all the seven joint Mutawallies in a meeting appointed the private respondent no.6 as Mutawalli and it is further stated that he had the right to nominate his successor. Disputes arose regarding 2 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 the right of the respondent no.6 as the Mutawalli and by the orders passed by the Board, the private respondent no.6 was not permitted to act as a Mutawalli rather the revisionist was appointed. This came to be challenged before the Waqf Tribunal and the plea of the private respondent no.6 did not find favour which compelled the private respondent no.6 to approach this Court in Civil revision No.221of 2017 (Jameel Ahmad Naziri Vs. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow and six others).

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad allowed the revision preferred by the private respondent no.6 vide its judgment and order dated

22.10.2019. The Court while deciding the said revision found that two crucial questions were required to be considered by the Board which had not been done, hence the orders impugned in the revision was set aside and a direction was issued to the Board that they shall consider the plea regarding the case of the private respondent no.6 being a Mutawalli for life as well as whether the Madarsa existing on plot was separate from the plot purchased for constructing the Masjid.

6. The record further indicates that this order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad was made the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court by Shri Anwar Sadat. The S.L.P. was disposed of without interfering with the orders passed by the High Court as it was observed that the matter was with the Board, who was required to consider the contention of the respective parties on merit. After the order was passed by the Apex Court dated 24.11.2020, by which the order passed by the High Court dated 22.10.2019 was affirmed and, the matter became alive before the Board.

7. The Board once again considering the respective plea of the parties dealt with the matter and the issue as provided by the High Court relating to the existence of the Madarsa on the plot separate from the plot purchased for construction of a Masjid in respect of the plea as to whether the private respondent no.6 was Mutawalli for life was not considered. This aspect of the matter was further escalated by filing a reference before the Waqf Tribunal who also decided the same by its order dated

13.03.2023. However, the Tribunal also did not deal with this aspect. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the revisionist has approached this 3 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 Court assailing the said orders.

8. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order passed by the Board is bad for several reasons including that it has been passed by the Chairman who is not the Board whereas as per the direction of the High Court, it was the Board who was the duty bound to decide the matter as directed by the High Court apart from the fact that the directions issued by the High Court which has been affirmed by the Apex Court was also not complied with or the issue determined.

9. Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.6 made submissions, however, fairly submitted that in so far as the issue whether the respondent no.6 could be treated as Mutawalli for life has not been considered by the Board nor the other issue pointed out by the High Court has been decided despite a clear categoric direction of the High Court.

10. Shri Farhan Habib, learned counsel appearing for the Board also could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and noticing the observations made by the High Court in Revision No.221 of 2017 which came to be decided on 22.10.2019 and the relevant part thereof, for the purposes of clarity, is being reproduced herein after:- "In view of the above, this Court finds that two crucial aspects have not been dealt with in the orders impugned. First, the claim of the revisionist that he was a lifetime Mutawalli, which claim was supported by documentary evidence, has not been dealt with. No reason have been assigned for not relying upon the said documentary evidence. Secondly the defence that the Madarsa existed on a plot, separate from the plot, purchased for constructing the Masjid has also not been adverted to by the Board and the Waqf Tribunal. Under the circumstances and in view of the foregoing, the impugned orders are not liable to be sustained. The revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.01.2016 4 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 and 16.06.2017, are hereby set aside. The Waqf Board is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application for extension of the revisionist's appointment as Mutawalli, which application is admittedly pending before it. While considering this application the Board shall necessarily deal with the contention of the revisionist that he had been appointed Mutawalli for life, of the Waqf in question as evidenced from the documents filed on record of this revision as also before the Waqf Tribunal"

12. Needless to say that the aforesaid observations have been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 24.11.2020 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "We understand that by office Memorandum dated 15.11.2019, UP Sunny Central Waqf Board, has recognized the revisionist Shri Jameel Ahmad Nazeeri to manage the concerned Waqf and that said Office Memorandum is presently under challenge before the UP Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court but observe that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, the matter and respective contentions of the parties, shall be considered purely on merits. With the aforesaid observations, this SLP is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of"

13. In light of the aforesaid categoric decision and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Board has failed to exercise jurisdiction by passing the order impugned which could not be sustained as it was clearly in teeth of the orders passed by the High Court as well as the Apex Court. The Waqf Tribunal also fell into the same error in ignoring the categoric directions of the High Court which were affirmed by the Supreme Court and for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 5 CLRE No. 38 of 2023

14. Since the two issues which were directed by the High Court and affirmed by the Apex Court were to be decided but has not been done, hence, in such circumstances, this Court finds that the order passed by the Board as well as the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter shall be restored before the Board who after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the same taking note of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019 as well as the Apex Court and the objections which may be raised by the respective parties squarely within the perimeter as drawn by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Further direction is issued to the Board that it shall consider and decide the matter in accordance with law preferably within a period of eight weeks, from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Board concerned.

16. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of plea of either of the parties which shall be considered by the Board and the orders have been set aside as the issue required by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019 has not been decided. November 27, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Shamshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board is represented by Shri Farhan Habib learned counsel and Shir Faisal Ahmad Khan alongwith Mohd. Muballi Gussalam for the private respondent no.6.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Waqf Tribunal whereby the reference filed by the revisionist was rejected, as a consequence, the order of the Board dated 14.11.2019 in favour of the private respondent no.6 was affirmed as a consequence the respondent no.6 was recognized as Mutawalli for a period of three years with effect from12.01.2019.

3. This Matter has a prelude. The dispute actually arises regarding the status of the Mutawalli relating to Waqf Jama Masjid Jadeed No.2443- Azamgarh. As a fact Seven persons had purchased Plot No.1218 having an area of 523 links in village Newada, Post Amilo, District Azamgarh over which the Jama Masjid was constructed and the said seven vendors became joint Mutawallies.

4. It is also the case that all the seven joint Mutawallies in a meeting appointed the private respondent no.6 as Mutawalli and it is further stated that he had the right to nominate his successor. Disputes arose regarding 2 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 the right of the respondent no.6 as the Mutawalli and by the orders passed by the Board, the private respondent no.6 was not permitted to act as a Mutawalli rather the revisionist was appointed. This came to be challenged before the Waqf Tribunal and the plea of the private respondent no.6 did not find favour which compelled the private respondent no.6 to approach this Court in Civil revision No.221of 2017 (Jameel Ahmad Naziri Vs. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow and six others).

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad allowed the revision preferred by the private respondent no.6 vide its judgment and order dated

22.10.2019. The Court while deciding the said revision found that two crucial questions were required to be considered by the Board which had not been done, hence the orders impugned in the revision was set aside and a direction was issued to the Board that they shall consider the plea regarding the case of the private respondent no.6 being a Mutawalli for life as well as whether the Madarsa existing on plot was separate from the plot purchased for constructing the Masjid.

6. The record further indicates that this order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad was made the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court by Shri Anwar Sadat. The S.L.P. was disposed of without interfering with the orders passed by the High Court as it was observed that the matter was with the Board, who was required to consider the contention of the respective parties on merit. After the order was passed by the Apex Court dated 24.11.2020, by which the order passed by the High Court dated 22.10.2019 was affirmed and, the matter became alive before the Board.

7. The Board once again considering the respective plea of the parties dealt with the matter and the issue as provided by the High Court relating to the existence of the Madarsa on the plot separate from the plot purchased for construction of a Masjid in respect of the plea as to whether the private respondent no.6 was Mutawalli for life was not considered. This aspect of the matter was further escalated by filing a reference before the Waqf Tribunal who also decided the same by its order dated

13.03.2023. However, the Tribunal also did not deal with this aspect. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the revisionist has approached this 3 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 Court assailing the said orders.

8. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order passed by the Board is bad for several reasons including that it has been passed by the Chairman who is not the Board whereas as per the direction of the High Court, it was the Board who was the duty bound to decide the matter as directed by the High Court apart from the fact that the directions issued by the High Court which has been affirmed by the Apex Court was also not complied with or the issue determined.

9. Shri Faisal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.6 made submissions, however, fairly submitted that in so far as the issue whether the respondent no.6 could be treated as Mutawalli for life has not been considered by the Board nor the other issue pointed out by the High Court has been decided despite a clear categoric direction of the High Court.

10. Shri Farhan Habib, learned counsel appearing for the Board also could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and noticing the observations made by the High Court in Revision No.221 of 2017 which came to be decided on 22.10.2019 and the relevant part thereof, for the purposes of clarity, is being reproduced herein after:- "In view of the above, this Court finds that two crucial aspects have not been dealt with in the orders impugned. First, the claim of the revisionist that he was a lifetime Mutawalli, which claim was supported by documentary evidence, has not been dealt with. No reason have been assigned for not relying upon the said documentary evidence. Secondly the defence that the Madarsa existed on a plot, separate from the plot, purchased for constructing the Masjid has also not been adverted to by the Board and the Waqf Tribunal. Under the circumstances and in view of the foregoing, the impugned orders are not liable to be sustained. The revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.01.2016 4 CLRE No. 38 of 2023 and 16.06.2017, are hereby set aside. The Waqf Board is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application for extension of the revisionist's appointment as Mutawalli, which application is admittedly pending before it. While considering this application the Board shall necessarily deal with the contention of the revisionist that he had been appointed Mutawalli for life, of the Waqf in question as evidenced from the documents filed on record of this revision as also before the Waqf Tribunal"

12. Needless to say that the aforesaid observations have been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 24.11.2020 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- "We understand that by office Memorandum dated 15.11.2019, UP Sunny Central Waqf Board, has recognized the revisionist Shri Jameel Ahmad Nazeeri to manage the concerned Waqf and that said Office Memorandum is presently under challenge before the UP Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court but observe that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, the matter and respective contentions of the parties, shall be considered purely on merits. With the aforesaid observations, this SLP is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of"

13. In light of the aforesaid categoric decision and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Board has failed to exercise jurisdiction by passing the order impugned which could not be sustained as it was clearly in teeth of the orders passed by the High Court as well as the Apex Court. The Waqf Tribunal also fell into the same error in ignoring the categoric directions of the High Court which were affirmed by the Supreme Court and for the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 5 CLRE No. 38 of 2023

14. Since the two issues which were directed by the High Court and affirmed by the Apex Court were to be decided but has not been done, hence, in such circumstances, this Court finds that the order passed by the Board as well as the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter shall be restored before the Board who after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the same taking note of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019 as well as the Apex Court and the objections which may be raised by the respective parties squarely within the perimeter as drawn by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Further direction is issued to the Board that it shall consider and decide the matter in accordance with law preferably within a period of eight weeks, from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Board concerned.

16. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of plea of either of the parties which shall be considered by the Board and the orders have been set aside as the issue required by the High Court in its order dated 22.10.2019 has not been decided. November 27, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ALI NEWAZ KHAN ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench