Revisionist(s) v. Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Wakf Board, Through its Chairman, Lucknow and on 12 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 being aggrieved from the judgment dated

25.04.2023 passed by the Waqf Tribunal in Appeal No. 9 of 2023 dismissing the appeal and affirming the order dated 31.03.2022 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Mutawalli.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant revision, is being mentioned hereinafter:-

3. Waqf Meer Khuda Baksh Karbala, Talkatora, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Waqf in question”) is a waqf governed and administered by the Shia Central Waqf Board in accordance with the Waqf deed dated 16.02.1918. The said waqf was registered with the Shia Central Waqf Board vide order dated

26.04.2012 and the revisionist was appointed as a Mutawalli along with a Committee of 14 members for a period of 3 years. 2 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023

4. The record indicates that the revisionist along with the 14 member Committee was further permitted to manage and administer the waqf vide order dated 27.11.2019 for a period of 10 years, however, vide order dated 06.03.2022, the term of the Committee which was for 10 years, vide order dated 27.11.2019, was reduced to five years.

5. The revisionist apart from being the Mutawalli of the Waqf in question was also elected as a member of the U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board.

6. The dispute arose with the issuance of a show cause notice dated

24.11.2021 under the signatures of the Chief Executive Officers, of the Waqf Board seeking explanation in respect of allegations leveled against the revisionist relating to constructions having been raised on the property of the waqf.

7. The revisionist was also called upon to furnish any permission that may have been granted by the Waqf Board for raising the aforesaid constructions. A copy of the said show cause notice has been placed on record of this revision as Annexure No. 6.

8. In response, the revisionist on 25.11.2021 furnished his reply indicating that the waqf was being administered appropriately and the issuance of show cause notice was an attempt to illegally interfere with the affairs of the waqf in question.

9. It was also stated that the constructions as referred to was prior to the year 2012 i.e. before the registration of the said waqf with the Board, moreover, the residents and shops in respect of which the revisionist was put to notice are subjudice before the Court in proceedings being contested against Gajendra Singh. Moreover the said continuation was existing on Khasra Plot Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which was not the waqf property.

10. From this stage, there is a divergence regarding the versions of the respective contesting parties, inasmuch as, the case of the revisionist is that after filing the reply dated 25.11.2021, the revisionist was not confronted with any information or 3 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 communication from the Board and apparently the respondents held some sort of inquiry behind the back of the revisionist.

11. On the basis of the alleged inquiry report dated 07.12.2021, the proceedings were taken forward behind the back of the revisionist for his removal as a Mutawalli of the waqf in question.

12. It is also the case of the revisionist that the alleged report dated

07.12.2021 was neither served on him and moreover, it is alleged that the waqf Board in its meeting held on 14.12.2021 considered the said report and the Board was satisfied that there was clear and ample material before the Board to proceed under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995 for removal of the revisionist.

13. It is also the case of the revisionist that since he was a member of the Waqf Board, hence, he was served with the agenda of a meeting of the Board proposed to be held on 14.12.2021 but the said agenda did not contain any business to be conducted against the revisionist in furtherance of the show cause notice issued to the revisionist for his removal.

14. It has further been stated that though the revisionist attended the meeting on 14.12.2021 but the fact remains that no proceedings or business was conducted relating to the considerations of the alleged report dated 07.12.2021 and any decision taken thereon.

15. It is also the case of the revisionist that in furtherance of an alleged decision taken on 14.12.2021, another show cause notice was issued to the revisionist for his removal and in pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 was issued containing with four charges against the revisionist and it was also proposed that the revisionist may be removed from the post of Mutawalli in terms of Section 64 of the Waqf Act.

16. Since the revisionist was not aware nor he was served with the alleged show cause notice dated 16.12.2021, hence, the proceedings allegedly were carried forward by the Board ex-parte and another letter was circulated dated 14.03.2022 for convening a meeting of the Board to be held on 25.03.2022 and it is alleged 4 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 that in the said meeting a decision was taken for removal of the revisionist as the Mutawalli of the Waqf and the affairs of the waqf were taken over by the Board and putting it under direct management of the administrator.

17. This order dated 31.03.2022 was assailed by the revisionist by filing an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow which has been dismissed leading to filing of the aforesaid revision.

18. In contrast, as per the stand of the Waqf Board, it is their case that the revisionist was served with the show cause notice and he was also served with the copy of the inspection report and the receiving of the same is also available with the Board to support its stand.

19. It was also stated by the Board that since the revisionist did not respond to the show cause notice issued, hence, the impugned orders were passed considering the report dated 07.12.2021 and such a decision cannot be termed to be bad in the eyes of law, accordingly, the orders impugned for removal of the revisionist as a Mutwalli may not be interfered with.

20. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of allegations and counter

allegations, Sri Faizal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that first and foremost the waqf in question is waqf-al-aulad in terms of the waqf deed, the revisionist belonging to the family of the waqif was entitled to be appointed as the Mutawalli.

21. The waqf in question came to be registered by the Board on

26.04.2012 and the alleged alleged notice dated 24.11.2021 was issued to the revisionist which was duly replied and it was also informed to the Board that the alleged constructions raised (which was disputed) had already been constructed prior to the registration of the waqf, hence, the same could not have been taken as a ground for initiating any proceeding coupled with the fact that there was otherwise no material available with the Board to support the stand taken, hence, the order of removal apart from 5 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 being ex-parte was also based on no evidence and could not be sustained.

22. The learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that neither the revisionist received any communication post filing of his reply dated 25.11.2021 and moreover the notice circulated for a proposed meeting of the Board to be held on 14.12.2021 did not contain any agenda to consider initiation of proceedings against the revisionist. Accordingly, the alleged resolution of the Board said to have been passed in the meeting dated 14.12.2021 for initiating proceedings against the revisionist was patently forged. Moreover, the alleged issuance of the show cause notice dated

16.12.2021 also lacked competence as it was neither served on the revisionist and all subsequent proceedings in furtherance of the alleged notice dated 16.12.2021 was held behind the back of the revisionist without any notice to him and as such the entire proceedings which culminated in the order impugned dated

31.03.2022 was legally nonest and this aspect has also not been considered by the Waqf Tribunal where the aforesaid issues were raised in an appeal, thus, the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal also deserves to be set aside.

23. Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has refuted the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and inter-alia raised an objection that the instant revision had become infructuous on account of lapse of time.

24. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has urged that the revisionist was appointed as the Mutawalli of the waqf in question by means of order dated 27.11.2019 for a period of 10 years which by a subsequent order dated 06.03.2020 was modified and the term was curtailed for 5 years and thus the period of 5 years w.e.f. 27.11.2019 came to an end in the year 2024, accordingly, now in any case, the revisionist cannot be granted any remedy which may have the impact of putting him in the same 6 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 position, hence, the revision be dismissed as infructuous on this ground alone.

25. It has further been pointed out that it is incorrectly stated by the revisionist that he was not served with the show cause notice or the report dated 07.12.2021 whereas the same was served and an extract of the ‘Peon Book’ maintained by the Board dated

08.12.2021 indicates that the revisionist had received the information under his own signatures which is appended in the said Poen Book.

26. It is urged that the show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 was personally received by the revisionist under his own signatures dated 17.12.2021, hence, the contention of the revisionist that the proceedings were taken behind his back and he was not aware or did not receive the report dated 07.12.2021 or the show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 is void and that false allegations which are contrary to the record are bad and imaginary and thus the said submissions must fail. This aspect has been considered by the Waqf Tribunal on merits after considering the material on record and it cannot be said that there is any error in the said findings which may persuade this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with it.

27. It has also been urged that the revisionist had indulged in malpractices, inasmuch as, the constructions were raised over the Waqf property, accordingly, the conduct of the revisionist was contrary to that of the Mutawalli as he raised illegal constructions over the waqf property without seeking permission of the Board. With a view to misappropriate the funds, shops were allowed to be constructed over the property but the residential part constructed over the shops was not incorporated in the records maintained by the Waqf. Thus, the flat constructed over the shops was not disclosed in the waqf records and the residential house raised by the revisionist on the property of the waqf was also contrary to his status as a Mutawalli and that too without permission of the Board 7 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 were serious grounds leveled against the revisionist and he having failed to meet and reply thereto with cogent evidence, were found substantiated and thus the order dated 31.03.2022 does not suffer from any error and this aspect has also been noticed by the Waqf Tribunal, hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed.

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

29. Upon considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, apparently, two points arise before this Court for determination:- (i) Whether the proceedings initiated by the Board in terms of the show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 was conducted with notice to the revisionist or was it ex-parte. This also encapsulates the aspect as to whether there was ample material before the Board to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the revisionist had violated his status of a Mutawalli viz. a viz. the waqf property. (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal upholding the order of removal of the revisionist as a Mutawalli was based on the material available on record before the Tribunal, who exercises appellate jurisdiction.

30. At the outset, the Court before entering into the aforesaid two questions would revert to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Board regarding the instant revision having become infructuous. In this regard, it has primarily been urged that the tenure of the revisionist to act as the Mutawalli commenced w.e.f. 27.11.2019 for a period of 5 years which came to an end on 26.11.2024 and thus if at all the petitioner has any grievance that has subsided as the revisionist may seek his fresh appointment as a Mutawalli but the instant revision has lost its efficacy nor this Court can appoint the revisionist as a Mutawalli as the term already stands lapsed.

31. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the revisionist who has drawn the attention of the Court to sub Section 8 of Section 64 of 8 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 the Waqf Act, 1995 to contend that in case a person is removed as a Mutawalli in terms of Section 64 of the Act then such a person is not eligible for being re-appointed as a Mutawalli of the said waqf for a period of 5 years from the date of removal.

32. In this case, the date of removal is 31.03.2022 and a period of 5 years would lapse in the year 2027, accordingly, it cannot be said that the revision has been rendered infructuous.

33. Considering this aspect of the matter and noticing Section 64(8) of the Waqf Act, 1995, it is clear that a person incurrs a disability for being considered as a Mutawalli of the waqf for a period of 5 years from the date of his removal. This is a personal stigma which is attached for being re-considered as a Mutawalli and since the period of 5 years from the date of removal would expire in the year 2027, hence, it cannot be said that the instant revision has become infructuous and moreover if an order of removal has been passed considering the grounds which are mentioned in Section 64 (1) (a) to (k) which are in the nature, which impacts a person’s integrity, hence, a person affected has a right to get his right and reputation vindicated and to that extent, it cannot be said that the instant revision has become infructuous. Accordingly, the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the Board does not impress this Court and is accordingly turned down.

34. Now, this Court proposes to consider the two issues cropping up in this revision-

35. Considering the first issue, this Court finds that the 3 facts which are not in dispute between the parties are (a) that the revisionist apart from being appointed as a Mutawalli was also an elected member of the Board; (b) that the revisionist was appointed as the Mutawalli earlier in the year 2012 and subsequently vide order dated 05.12.2019, for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 27.11.2019 and this term of the Committee was reduced to 5 years vide order dated 06.03.2020; (c) the only material available with the Board 9 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 upon which it passed the order dated 31.03.2022 was the inspection report dated 07.12.2021.

36. In light of the aforesaid three undisputed facts, it will be appropriate to examine the record and the record indicates that on

24.11.2021, the Board had issued a notice to the revisionist in his capacity as a Mutawalli seeking clarification on the following 3 points:- (i) That the revisionist had constructed his residential house over the waqf property for which the revisionist had not sought any permission from the Board and in case if any permission of the Board was available with the revisionist then the permission along with the sanctioned map and other documents be provided to the Board; (ii) Under whose permission, the shops and flat was constructed over the property of the waqf and in case any such permission of the Board or any other Authority was available, the same be provided; (iii) Any constructions being raised on the property of the waqf may be stopped.

37. The revisionist furnished his reply to the said notice vide his letter dated 25.11.2021 wherein it was stated that the waqf property was being administered in terms of the waqf deed as per the wishes of the waqif. The said waqf was private in nature and it did not warrant any interference from the Board.

38. It was further stated that alleged constructions referred to in the notice dated 24.11.2021 were raised prior to the year year 2012 i.e. prior to the date of registration of the said waqf. Apart from above, there was an ongoing litigation relatig to the shops with one Sri Gajendra Singh and moreover the said shop/house/flat were part of Khasra Plot Nos.s 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which were not even registered as a waqf property.

39. The record further indicates that the Board had called for an inspection report vide order dated 18.11.2021 in pursuance 10 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 whereof a spot inspection was made on 20.11.2021 and the report was furnished to the Board dated 07.12.2021 (a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No. 8).

40. The report clearly states that during the spot inspection, the revisionist could not be contacted. It also indicates that the persons present at the site stated and informed the Inspector that the shops constructed were raised prior to the year 2012. It was also informed that the flats were constructed over the shops subsequent to the year 2012. It also records that the persons who gave this information refused to divulge their names.

41. The report further states that as a matter of fact the revisionist had raised constructions over the waqf property and there was no permission granted for the same as evident from the file. It also noticed that un-uthorized constructions were found at the spot and the Inspector took note of the letter dated 22.11.2021 directed to the District Magistrate/the Waqf Commissioner to get the ongoing constructions stopped. The Inspector thereafter went on to refer to the reply of the revisionist dated 25.11.2021 and he further noticed that in light of the letter issued by the waqf dated 26.04.2012 whereby the waqf was registered as a public waqf and in pursuance whereof the Managing Committee and the Mutawalli were appointed vide order dated 27.11.2019, the revisionist was appointed as Mutawalli for a period of 5 years which would come to an end on 26.11.2024.

42. Just to put the above observations in a perspective, the relevant portion of the said report of the Inspector dated 07.12.2021 is being reproduced hereinafter:- " (cid:1)(cid:2)या मरकनी व(cid:11)फ बो(cid:15)(cid:16) - उ(cid:18)र (cid:19)दे(cid:2) फद(cid:16) अहकाम माननीय अ(cid:24)यय(cid:25) महोदय, आपके आदे(cid:2) (cid:28)दनांक 18-11-2021 कब(cid:16)ला तालकटोरा लखनऊ का (cid:28)दनांक 20-11-2021 (cid:28)कया गया )*सम (cid:28)नरी(cid:25)ण के प,ात (cid:28)न-न त.य (cid:19)का(cid:2) म आए। यह (cid:28)क उ1 व(cid:11)फ की %थलीय *ांच के दौरान 5ी. नह7 हो सका मौके पर लोग8 ने बताया (cid:28)क उ1 दुकानात व9(cid:16) 2012 के अनुपालन म व(cid:11)फ मीरखुदाब(cid:11)(cid:2) को %थलीय (cid:28)नरी(cid:25)ण फै *ी से संपक(cid:16) %था(cid:28)पत से पूव(cid:16) बनी 11 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 हुई है परंतु दुकान8 के ऊपर *ो <ै ट8 का (cid:28)नमा(cid:16)ण (cid:28)कया गया है वह व9(cid:16) 2012 के बाद का है उन लोग8 ने अपना नाम बताने से इनकार (cid:28)कया है। (cid:28)दनांक 22-11-2021 )*लाAधकारी/ को मुतवHी 5ी फै *ी को बो(cid:15)(cid:16) से नो(cid:28)टस संFया (cid:19)े(cid:28)9त (cid:28)कया गया था )*सका *वाब मुतवHी ?ारा (cid:28)दनांक 25-11- को (cid:28)दया गया है )*सम उनके ?ारा कथन (cid:28)कया गया (cid:28)क उ1 ब(cid:11)फ यह (cid:28)क व(cid:11)फ संप>(cid:18) पर 5ी फै *ी ?ारा *ो अपना @रहाय(cid:2)ी मकान का (cid:28)नमा(cid:16)ण (cid:28)कया गया है उसकी अनुमAत बो(cid:15)(cid:16) से नह7 (cid:19)ाB की गई है *ैसा की पCावली के अवलोकन से (cid:19)तीत होता है। यह की मौके पर अवैध Eप से (cid:28)नमा(cid:16)ण होता पाया गया )*स के संबंध म बो(cid:15)(cid:16) से पC संFया 499 व(cid:11)फ आयु1 लखनऊ को अवैध Eप से हो रहे (cid:28)नमा(cid:16)ण को Gकवाने के संबंध म (cid:28)नग(cid:16)त हुआ है। यह (cid:28)क (cid:28)दनांक 24-11-2021 1599 2021 पा@रवा@रक है और उ1 (cid:28)नमा(cid:16)ण व9(cid:16) 2012 व(cid:11)फ म कमेटी की (cid:28)नयु(cid:28)1 के संबंध म 5ी सैयद (cid:2)फी हैदर उफ(cid:16) आ(cid:28)मर का (cid:19)ाथ(cid:16)ना पC (cid:28)दनांक 22-11-2021 बो(cid:15)(cid:16) म (cid:19)ाB हुआ है )*सम उJह8ने यह कथन (cid:28)कया है (cid:28)क उ1 व(cid:11)फ मेरे पूव(cid:16)*8 की संप>(cid:18) है उनका कK*ा दखल रहा है। पCावली संFया 1-1011 व(cid:11)फ का पं*ीकरण बो(cid:15)(cid:16) आदे(cid:2) (cid:28)दनांक 26-04-2012 अलल खैर ( बो(cid:15)(cid:16) ?ारा (cid:19)बंध कमेटी / यह (cid:28)क उ1 व(cid:11)फ के (cid:19)बंध हेतु वत(cid:16)मान म बो(cid:15)(cid:16) आदे(cid:2) (cid:28)दनांक 27-11-2019 ?ारा 5ी सै० फै *ी को पांच व9(cid:16) हेतु मुतवHी (cid:28)नयु1 (cid:28)कया गया था )*न की काय(cid:16) अवAध (cid:28)दनांक 26-11 2024 आFया अवलोकनाथ(cid:16)/ ह०/- 43. का अवलोकन उपरांत यह (cid:28)व(cid:28)दत हुआ (cid:28)क उ1 के अंतग(cid:16)त व(cid:11)फ के Eप म पं*ीकृ त हुआ था )*सके (cid:19)बंध हेतु मुतवHी की (cid:28)नयु(cid:28)1 की *ाती रही है। अ(cid:28)Nम काय(cid:16)वाही हेतु (cid:19)%तुत है। साव(cid:16)*(cid:28)नक व(cid:11)फ) को समाB होगी। के पूव(cid:16) का है। 07-12-2021”” From the perusal of the report dated 07.12.2021, as noticed above,

44. it is clear that the Inspector has mentioned that the said inspection was done without notice to the revisionist and in his absence. The entire basis as reflected from the report, the statement of few people found at the site who are actually unknown as it is clearly mentioned in the said alleged report that the people had refused to divulge their names.

45. There is nothing to indicate as to how the Inspector was satisfied regarding the constructions of shops being prior to the year 2012 and the flat on top of the shops was constructed post the year

2012. There is also no indication in the report as to what ongoing constructions were found and what was the stage and nature of the alleged ongoing constructions.

46. If the letter of the Board dated 22.11.2021 requesting the District Magistrate/the Waqf Commissioner to stop the illegal construction was issued then how come the constructions were being raised. Apparently, the said report, if considered in context with the show 12 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 cause notice issued to the revisionist dated 24.11.2021 cannot be re-conciled. The said report could not have been treated with sanctity since it was as vague as ever and the Inspector has not even attempted to make a proper spot inspection.

47. Moreover, there is nothing on record to indicate that what was the qualification of the Inspector as to how he would qualify to ascertain the age of construction or the year of construction by making a visual scan.

48. Once, the said report dated 07.12.2021 had been furnished to the Board, it is stated that the same was considered by the Board to be deliberated upon in a meeting to be held on 14.12.2021. A copy of the Agenda of the said meeting has been placed on record as Annexure No. 9 and from the perusal thereof, it would reveal that there is no specific agenda relating to consideration of the impact of the show cause notice issued to the revisionist dated 24.11.2021 and his reply dated 25.11.2021 and the report of the Inspector dated 07.12.2021.

49. The Minutes of the meeting of the Board dated 14.12.2021 which has been placed on record as Annexure No. 10 would indicate that from serial nos. 1 to 10, the resolutions do not relate to either the revisionist or in respect of the show cause notice dated 24.11.2021 issued to the revisionist, his reply and the Inspector’s report dated

07.12.2021.

50. It appears that the issue relating to the petitioner was considered under the Agenda No. 10 that is any other matter to be considered with the permission of the Chair.

51. It is in furtherance thereof that the notice dated 16.12.2021 purportedly under Section 64(1) of the Act of 1995 was issued to the revisionist. In the notice dated 16.12.2021, 30 days’ time was granted to the revisionist to furnish his reply. It is the case of the Board that the said show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 was served personally on the revisonist on 17.12.2021 and both the notice dated 16.12.2021 and the alleged report dated 07.12.2021 13 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 were personally served. Needless to say, this has been vehemently disputed by the revisionist.

52. The record would further indicate that the Board called for a meeting to be held on 30th March, 2022 wherein the issue relating to the revisionist was allegedly considered and thereafter the order dated 31.03.2022 was passed, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 16.

53. From the perusal of the order dated 31.03.2022, it would reveal that the Board in its meeting noticed that earlier a show cause notice was issued to the revisionist who did not file any objections either to the notice or relating to the inspection report and he did not even participate.

54. It went on to notice that the revisionist was appointed for a period of 5 years vide order of the Board dated 27.11.2019 and the said terms would come to an end on 26.11.2024. It also noticed that the record before the Board indicated that it was a public waqf and the Board had the right to appoint a committee of Management and the Mutawalli.

55. It finally concluded that since the allegations levelled against the revisionist in the notice dated 16.12.2021 were not denied nor refuted, hence, the allegations were found proved, accordingly, exercising powers under Section 64(1), the Board removed the revisionist as Mutwalli and took control of the waqf and appointed an Administrator.

56. In light of the aforesaid material and chronology of facts, this Court finds that there can be two ways to look at this dispute. One, as to whether the proceedings were taken forward in an ex-parte fashion behind the back of the revisionist depriving the revisionist with an opportunity of hearing and against the principles of natural justice. The other would be whether, even if the revisionist did not participate then despite that whether there was ample material before the Board by which it could have arrived at a finding which would satisfy the Board that grounds exercised for 14 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 removal of the revisionist as a Mutawalli in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 1995.

57. Much emphasis was made by the learned counsel for the Board that the revisionist has falsely stated that he was not served with the copy of the show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 as well as the inspection report dated 07.12.2021.

58. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the Board that the revisionist was aware of the meeting which took place on

14.12.2021 in pursuance whereof the show cause notice dated

16.12.2021 was issued but despite the same, it was the revisionist who deliberately abstained from participating and now having served with the consequence of removal, the revisionist cannot cry foul.

59. This Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submissions as the learned counsel for the Board could not point out any material available on record except the inspection report dated 07.12.2021 which is clearly ex-parte and behind the back of the revisionist nor there is any material to indicate that the revisionist was informed of the date and time of the inspection and yet he abstained.

60. Moreover, the learned counsel for the Board also could not demonstrate as to what sanctity could be attached to the said report dated 07.12.2021 especially when that said report clearly indicated that the basis of holding the revisionist guilty was the statement of some persons (unknown) who had stated that the shops were constructed prior to the year 2012 and the flats were constructed post 2012.

61. The credentials and qualification of the Inspector was not known nor the statement of the said Inspector was recorded to ascertain the sanctity of the report dated 07.12.2021. It also could not be demonstrated from the material on record as to what was the alleged constructions (nature and extent) which was ongoing when the Inspector reached the site on 07.12.2021. Apparently, the material which has been relied upon by the Board while passing 15 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 the order impugned dated 31.03.2022 was only the inspection report dated 07.12.2021 which as already noticed by this Court hereinabove was completely vague and appears to be a sham report.

62. The learned counsel for the Board also could not demonstrate that what other material was taken note of, what evidence was led and available with the Board including the fact that whether the said Inspector actually participated in any inquiry and his statement was recoded and before passing the order, the petitioner was informed of any date and time and place of hearings of the said alleged inquiry.

63. Apparently, the date of availability of the inspection report i.e. from 07.12.2021 till the passing of the order dated 31.03.2022 i.e. for this period of 3 months, what effort was made by the Board to inform the revisionist of the inquiry or sending him any reminder or informing him of any date, time and place when the matter relating to the revisionist would be considered, none of this could be established.

64. Another fact to be kept in mind is that till the order of removal dated 31.03.2022 was passed, the revisionist continued to be an elected member of the Board and in case if any issue relating to the revisionist for any allegation against him was to be considered in a meeting then he could not have been part of the said meeting as a member of the Board rather he was required to recused himself. In order to do this, it had to be specifically informed in the agenda that the issue relating to the allegations against the revisionist would also be considered in the meeting and as already noticed hereinabove, the agenda did not disclose such business to be transacted, coupled with the fact that even if it was proposed to be taken in any other matter with the permission of the Chair then how it could be expected of the revisionist to reply and make his case out before the Committee at the spur of the moment without informing the revisionist in advance as in absence of prior notice, 16 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 the revisionist could not know that the Committee under its Chair would grant permission to take the issue relating to the revisionist for consideration.

65. Thus, it clearly indicates that the inspection report was a sham document which did not inspire confidence and there was no material other than by which either the Inspector who made the inspection or the Board could have known whether the alleged constructions were made prior or subsequent to 2012.

66. Such an inspection report could not have been made the basis of removal, apart from the fact that even if the revisionist did not participate in the proceedings. The Committee ought to have had some additional cogent material before it, before it could apply its mind to come to a categorical conclusion regarding the involvement or improper conduct of the revisionist as a Mutawalli.

67. Merely to state that certain allegations which were leveled in the show cause notice dated 16.12.2021 was in the nature of charge sheet, as suggested by the counsel for the Board but even that cannot come to the aid of the Board to support the impugned order especially when there was no material upon which it could be said that the alleged charges in terms of the notice dated 16.12.2021 without there being any material on record, was proved.

68. This aspect of the matter has been completely given a go by and not considered by the Tribunal. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it would indicate that a reference has been made to the inspection report, the show cause notice and the extracts of the Peon Book to come to the conclusion that the revisionist was aware of the proceedings and he was granted an opportunity which was not availed by him and therefore the order of removal was sustained. The Board has also entered into the issue that the waqf was a public waqf and the Board was entitled to pass an order under Section 64 of the Act. 17 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023

69. What the Tribunal has completely missed is the fact that even if the revisionist was aware of the proceedings yet it did not absolve the Board of its obligation to hold a fair inquiry. Another aspect which has not been taken note of nor it could be established from record that is to say that even if the said shops were made prior to the year 2012 and the flat came to be constructed post the year 2012, how could it make any difference or bring the revisionist within the ambit of Section 64 (1) (a) to (k). For the reason that earlier the revisionist was appointed as a Mutawalli in the year 2012 and subsequently again vide order dated 05.12.2019 w.e.f.

27.11.2019 and once, the Tauliyat was certified on 05.12.2019 with a Committee of 14 members and odd and admittedly there was no dispute indicating any controversy regarding the existing structures or what was the nature and the extent of the waqf property i.e. to say how many shops were existing and in whose occupation were they found to be and who were the tenants and how much rent was being received is not there on record and even if the constructions were raised when the Committee was in charge then it had also to be indicated as to how alone the Mutawalli was responsible without there being any material to establish that the other members of the Committee were not involved.

70. In absence of any such material or evidence on record, merely to create a report and hold a sham inquiry and then to arrive at a conclusion, that as the revisionist did not appear or controvert the allegations by filing his reply, the allegations against him stood proved, cannot be a ground to absolve the Board of its own obligations to hold a fair inquiry and satisfying itself of the fact that the charge as leveled stood proved.

71. Now, it is too well settled to be disputed that any order whether it be administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial must contain reasons based on cogent material and if it is not then such an order is not only non-reasoned and cryptic but is also perverse. 18 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023

72. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the order dated 31.03.2022 removing the petitioner/revisionist as a Mutawalli was patently arbitrary, bad, non-reasoned and a perverse order and cannot be sustained, consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 25.04.2023 ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter also is erroneous and cannot be sustained and is set aside.

73. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant revision is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated25.04.2023 is set aside. The order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Waqf Board is also set aside.

74. It shall be open to the Waqf Board to issue a fresh notice to the revisionist, calling upon him to submit a reply within a reasonable period, after affording sufficient opportunity to do so. Upon receipt of such reply, the Board shall proceed to hold a proper inquiry and afford the revisionist an adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Board. Since, as informed, a new Committee has already assumed charge, the said Committee shall continue to function; however, its continuance shall remain subject to the final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the Board.

75. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the question as to whether the waqf in question is a public waqf or a private waqf, as asserted by the revisionist.

76. It is further clarified that the Court has not rendered any finding on the claim of the revisionist regarding the waqf being a private waqf or his alleged entitlement to accord priority in appointment as Mutawalli on the ground of being a descendant of the waqif. The impugned orders have been set aside on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the order passed for removal of the Mutawalli on the alleged ground as 19 CLRE No. - 41 of 2023 mentioned in Section 64 of the Act of 1995 were not made out and proved.

77. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 12, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench