Saif Siddiqui v. Revisionist(s) Waqf Sheikh Matinuzzama Waqf No.144 Lucknow And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s)

authority to appoint Mutwalli first from amongst the family of the Waqif and thereafter any person who professes the faith of Islam. The income of the Waqf was to be spent on charity as provided in the deed.

6. After the death of Waqif, his son in law Qazi Ishtiyaq Ahmad Abbasi became the Mutwalli. It is alleged that he applied before the Waqf Board for changing the nature of the entry of the Waqf from Waqf Alal Khair to Waqf Alal Aulad. However, the same is said to have been rejected vide order dated

02.09.1942 which in absence of any challenge attained finality.

7. It is also stated that Bibi Aaisha and Qazi Ishtiyaq Ahmad Abbasi died issueless and in absence of any person from the family of the Waqif, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain was appointed as Mutwalli on 17..03.1981. It is stated that certain tenants of Waqf Matinuzzaman submitted their complaint to the Chairman of the Board stating that Chaudary Abdullah Hussain had entered into a builder's agreement for constructing a new building on the Waqf property without obtaining permission and that he had received a handsome sum from the builder.

8. Acting on the said complaint, the Waqf Board is said to have obtained a report from their Law Officer who after conducting a spot inspection, and made inquiries and also took statements of Mutwalli as well as the tenants and furnished his report dated 10.08.2018.

9. Upon receiving the report on 27.08.2018, the Waqf Board issued notices to Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain calling upon him to respond as to why he should not be removed from Tauliyat of the Waqf as provided under Section 64 of the Act, 1995.

10. On 29.11.2018, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain submitted his reply and refuted the charges levelled against him. After consideration, the Waqf Board did not find favour with the response of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain and the Waqf Board vide its order dated 11.12.2018 removed Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain from the office of Mutwalli of the 3 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Waqf. In furtherance thereof, the Waqf Board noticing that the office of Mutwalli had fallen vacant and since the present revisionist had applied for being appointed, hence, his application was considered and vide office memorandum dated 12.12.2018 appointed the revisionist as the Mutwalli of the Waqf.

11. Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, being aggrieved filed an appeal before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal registered as Appeal No.4 of 2019 whereby he challenged his removal. Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain in his capacity as Mutwalli of the Waqf in question filed another appeal before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal bearing Appeal No.16 of 2019 whereby he challenged the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli of the Waqf.

12. In so far as the Appeal No.04 of 2019 is concerned, which was filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain assailing his order of removal was dismissed. On the very same day, the Waqf Tribunal by means of order dated

22.11.2019 passed another order in Appeal No.16 of 2019 which was filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain assailing the appointment of the revisionist as the Mutwalli and as a consequence, the Appeal No.16 of 2019 was allowed and the order of appointment of the revisionist was set aside and this prompted the present revisionist to assail the order of the Waqf Tribunal before this Court in the instant revision.

13. During the pendency of the instant revision, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain expired. Smt. Heena Taiyab w/o Gulam Taiyab (daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain) moved an application for substitution /impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC. In the said application, it was brought on record that after the death of ChaudharyAbdullah Hussain, the said applicant being her daughter and legal heir was entitled to hold the office of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question and consequential amendment be permitted in the memo of revision to incorporate the name of the applicant (Heena Taiyab) may be incorporated.

14. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court has heard Sri Dhruv Mathur learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Pranav Agarwal for the revisionist, Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel appearing for the Board and Sri J.P. Mathur learned counsel for the applicant/ intervenor/third party ( 4 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Heena Tayiab).

15. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has made a two fold submission: (i) that Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, after having been removed as Mutwalli did not have the power to file an appeal against his removal in the capacity of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question therefore his appeal preferred before the Waqf Tribunal was mired with misrepresentation and on the face of it was not maintainable. It was also urged that the appeal filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain against his removal had been dismissed by the Waqf Tribunal and that order attained finality as it was not assailed any further. In the aforesaid circumstances, as far as right of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain regarding being Mutwalli is concerned, came to an end and his matter rested. (ii) the other limb of the submission is that the order passed by the Waqf Board appointing revisionist as Mutwalli was till such time an appropriate Mutwalli from the family is made available and this being a temporary arrangement could not have been challenged by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain.

16. It has further urged that again while assailing the order of appointment of the revisionist, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain misrepresented himself as Mutwalli of the Waqf which he was not, from the date of his removal. The appointment of the revisionist, if at all, could have been challenged either by a genuine and a bonafide person having some interest or who had been wronged by the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli by the Waqf Board but in absence of any valid person having a subsisting locus and who could be treated as aggrieved by the revisionist's appointment could not have filed an appeal and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Waqf Tribunal who allowed the appeal preferred at the behest of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, as such the order impugned dated 22.11.2019 deserves to be set aside.

17. Sri J. P. Mathur learned counsel for the third party intervenor (Heena Taiyab) submitted that as per the Waqf deed, the Mutwalli had to be appointed from amongst family. Since, Chaudhary Abdullah 5 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Hussain was from the family of the Waqif within the prescription as mentioned in the Waqf deed of 1935, he was entitled to be appointed as Mutwalli and even though, he was removed and the challenge to his removal was turned down by the Waqf Tribunal yet the fact remains that the applicant being his daughter traced her lineage to the family of the Waqif hence in her presence, the Board was not justified in appointing the revisionist who is a rank outsider to the family of the Waqif and in such circumstances, the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli was not just. Considering this aspect, the Waqf Tribunal allowed the appeal. Even though Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain had expired and the applicant being his daughter and having a preference to be appointed as Mutwalli, she could contest these proceedings before this Court on behalf of the Waqf after the death of her father and in such circumstances, the application for substitution/impleadment deserves to be allowed.

18. It has also been urged that once it is admitted to the revisionist that the arrangement made by the Waqf Board for appointing the revisionist was temporary and the third party being the daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain and as she belongs to the family of the Waqif and she presents her claim for being appointed as Mutwalli hence, in such circumstances, the revision deserves to be dismissed and the applicant be appointed as Mutwalli.

19. Sri Farhan Habib, learned counsel for the Board has primarily submitted that the order passed by the Board appointing the revisionist as Mutwalli was only a stop gap arrangement, till such time, any person from the family of the Waqif came forward to seek his appointment. In any case, if the third party so wishes, her case can be considered but as far as the orders passed by the Waqf Tribunal is concerned, the same was passed without considering the facts and not in its correct perspective. Accordingly, the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

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

21. The facts between the parties are not much in dispute. The facts which are undisputed can be summarised as under: 6 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 (i) Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain was the Mutwalli appointed by the Board for the Waqf in question. Upon his removal as Mutwalli, the Board had the power to appoint a Mutwalli. (ii) It is also not disputed that the appeal preferred by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, against the order of his removal was dismissed by the Waqf Tribunal and the said order was not assailed any further hence, attained finality. (iii) In terms of Section 64 of the Waqf Act, a person removed from the office of Mutwalli is precluded to be considered for reappointment for a period of five years. (iv) It is also not disputed that during pendency of the instant revision, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain has expired. (v) It is also not disputed that the office of Mutwalli is not an office which a person can inherit by ordinary law of succession.

22. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts situation, it will first be appropriate to consider the application filed by Heena Taiyab seeking her substitution/impleadment deceased father Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain.

23. At the outset, it may be noticed that the fact whether the applicant Heena falls within the family of the Waqif and has preference for being appointed as a Mutwalli is to be considered by the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings. This Court exercises limited power i.e. to say it is only the order impugned which is under scrutiny of this Court i.e. whether the order of appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli was invalid and rightly set aside by the Waqf Tribunal.

24. The issue as to the right of the applicant to be impleaded in a proceedings of this nature in revision without there being any direct interest cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the Waqf is represented by the revisionist who was the Mutwalli appointed by the Board. The order setting aside that order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is subject to the orders to be passed in this revision and moreover, the revisionist enjoys an interim order 7 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 passed by this Court.

25. Admittedly, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain did not assail the order of his removal as Mutwalli of the Waqf any further i.e. to say after the dismissal of his appeal, he reconciled to his status of having been removed as Mutwalli. Now after his death, it is not open for any person to claim the right to be impleaded as the party for being considered as a Mutwalli of the Waqf.

26. Any person so intersected can approach the Board concerned and needless to say the said issue would be considered on its own merit. Moreover, the appointment of the revisionist admittedly was only as a stop gap arrangement. Thus, it cannot be countenanced that this Court would appoint the applicant as Mutwalli and as already noticed above that this issue has to be agitated before the Board who would take decision thereof.

27. The office of Mutwalli is not heritable, hence, merely being the daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain does not make the applicant a necessary party nor she can claim any right to the office of Mutwalli by succession. To that extent, the submission of Sri J.P. Mathur cannot be accepted hence the application for impleadment/substitution is rejected. However, mere rejection of this application may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits regarding any right of the application of the applicant for being considered as Mutwalli, if otherwise permissible.

28. In the changed factual scenario occasioned by the death of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, there is no contest to the appointment of the revisionist. The Board who has appointed the revisionist has not made any adverse submission regarding the order of appointment of revisionist as Mutwalli. This Court had made a specific query to Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel for the Board that what procedure was adopted by the Board for considering the application of the revisionist for being appointed as Mutwalli. Time was granted to Sri Habib to respond and that the hearing was deferred on few occasions to enable the counsel for the Board to update his instructions and produce any material however, none was placed before the Court and Sri Farhan Habib candidly submitted that since the revisionist had moved an application that in itself was the only material available and considered and based on it the revisionist was appointed as a Mutwalli. 8 CLRE No. 111 of 2019

29. Perusal of the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal, it would indicate that the Waqf Tribunal had noted that the Board had assumed that the Waqf in question was Waqf Alal Khair, however, there is no material nor it was put to any test in order to arrive at such a conclusion. It would have been appropriate for the Board to have considered what was the nature of the Waqf, whether it was, Waqf Alal Aulad then the Mutwalli should have been strictly in terms of the Waqf deed from the family of the Waqif. However, the contention that the said Waqf was treated to be as Waqf Alal Khair, of course, this fact too also was require to be ascertained and adjudicated after putting the affected parties to notice. Without a proper inquiry, a finding regarding the status of the Waqif could not have been recorded hence, to that extent the explanation given by the Board treating the Waqif to be Waqf Alal Khair is not sustainable.

30. In the given facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. But at the same time, it is also to be noticed that whether Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain fell within preferential decree of relationship with the family of the Waqif was also to be noticed as it has been disputed by the revisionist. Moreover, there has been no clear indications from the side of the Board in this regard.

31. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted as the Board appointed the revisionist on the basis of just an application before it without putting the vacancy in the office of Mutwalli to notice of the concerned people at large and without ascertaining the valid member available from the family of the Waqif. Moreover, the nature of the Waqf in question was also to be determined, and it could only be done, based on evidence and putting affected persons to notice. In absence of any such legal determination, the order of the Board appointing the revisionist as Mutwalli was not appropriate and is not a validly passed order.

32. In view of the aforesaid, it can safely be said that merely because the revisionist had moved an application before the Waqf Board, he was appointed as Mutwalli without following any due procedure known to law, hence, in the given circumstances, this Court finds that it will be appropriate to issue certain directions to the Board to be kept in mind while considering 9 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 an appropriate person for the office of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question. An endeavor would be made by the Board first to ascertain as to whether Waqf in question is Waqf Alal Khair or Waqf Alal Aulad. While doing so, it will take note of the Waqf deed of 1935 as well as hear the parties concerned including some beneficiaries of the Waqf as well as member from the family the Waqif. Since Heena Taiyab(daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain) claims to be from family of Waqif, hence, she shall be entitled for hearing while considering the status of the Waqf as noticed above. The Waqf shall also adopt a fair and transparent procedure to consider eligible persons for being appointed as Mutwalli of the Waqf in question. While doing so, the candidature of such persons be considered in terms of the Waqf deed relating to the family of Waqif and also suitability of the person offering himself or herself to be considered as a Mutwalli including the case of Smt. Heena. Appropriate citation can be issued to invite applications even from eligible members professing the faith of Islam having sterling credentials and thereafter the Board may take a considered decision to appoint a Mutwalli. The Waqf Board shall ensure that the entire exercise is completed by

31.03.2026. Thus, till 31.03.2026 or till the appointment of Mutwalli, whichever is earlier, the present revisionist shall continue to act as Mutwalli as a temporary arrangement.

33. The revision is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

34. The record shall be returned forthwith to the Tribunal concerned. December 5, 2025 Harshita. (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

authority to appoint Mutwalli first from amongst the family of the Waqif and thereafter any person who professes the faith of Islam. The income of the Waqf was to be spent on charity as provided in the deed.

6. After the death of Waqif, his son in law Qazi Ishtiyaq Ahmad Abbasi became the Mutwalli. It is alleged that he applied before the Waqf Board for changing the nature of the entry of the Waqf from Waqf Alal Khair to Waqf Alal Aulad. However, the same is said to have been rejected vide order dated

02.09.1942 which in absence of any challenge attained finality.

7. It is also stated that Bibi Aaisha and Qazi Ishtiyaq Ahmad Abbasi died issueless and in absence of any person from the family of the Waqif, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain was appointed as Mutwalli on 17..03.1981. It is stated that certain tenants of Waqf Matinuzzaman submitted their complaint to the Chairman of the Board stating that Chaudary Abdullah Hussain had entered into a builder's agreement for constructing a new building on the Waqf property without obtaining permission and that he had received a handsome sum from the builder.

8. Acting on the said complaint, the Waqf Board is said to have obtained a report from their Law Officer who after conducting a spot inspection, and made inquiries and also took statements of Mutwalli as well as the tenants and furnished his report dated 10.08.2018.

9. Upon receiving the report on 27.08.2018, the Waqf Board issued notices to Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain calling upon him to respond as to why he should not be removed from Tauliyat of the Waqf as provided under Section 64 of the Act, 1995.

10. On 29.11.2018, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain submitted his reply and refuted the charges levelled against him. After consideration, the Waqf Board did not find favour with the response of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain and the Waqf Board vide its order dated 11.12.2018 removed Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain from the office of Mutwalli of the 3 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Waqf. In furtherance thereof, the Waqf Board noticing that the office of Mutwalli had fallen vacant and since the present revisionist had applied for being appointed, hence, his application was considered and vide office memorandum dated 12.12.2018 appointed the revisionist as the Mutwalli of the Waqf.

11. Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, being aggrieved filed an appeal before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal registered as Appeal No.4 of 2019 whereby he challenged his removal. Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain in his capacity as Mutwalli of the Waqf in question filed another appeal before the U.P. Waqf Tribunal bearing Appeal No.16 of 2019 whereby he challenged the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli of the Waqf.

12. In so far as the Appeal No.04 of 2019 is concerned, which was filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain assailing his order of removal was dismissed. On the very same day, the Waqf Tribunal by means of order dated

22.11.2019 passed another order in Appeal No.16 of 2019 which was filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain assailing the appointment of the revisionist as the Mutwalli and as a consequence, the Appeal No.16 of 2019 was allowed and the order of appointment of the revisionist was set aside and this prompted the present revisionist to assail the order of the Waqf Tribunal before this Court in the instant revision.

13. During the pendency of the instant revision, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain expired. Smt. Heena Taiyab w/o Gulam Taiyab (daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain) moved an application for substitution /impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC. In the said application, it was brought on record that after the death of ChaudharyAbdullah Hussain, the said applicant being her daughter and legal heir was entitled to hold the office of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question and consequential amendment be permitted in the memo of revision to incorporate the name of the applicant (Heena Taiyab) may be incorporated.

14. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court has heard Sri Dhruv Mathur learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Pranav Agarwal for the revisionist, Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel appearing for the Board and Sri J.P. Mathur learned counsel for the applicant/ intervenor/third party ( 4 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Heena Tayiab).

15. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist has made a two fold submission: (i) that Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, after having been removed as Mutwalli did not have the power to file an appeal against his removal in the capacity of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question therefore his appeal preferred before the Waqf Tribunal was mired with misrepresentation and on the face of it was not maintainable. It was also urged that the appeal filed by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain against his removal had been dismissed by the Waqf Tribunal and that order attained finality as it was not assailed any further. In the aforesaid circumstances, as far as right of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain regarding being Mutwalli is concerned, came to an end and his matter rested. (ii) the other limb of the submission is that the order passed by the Waqf Board appointing revisionist as Mutwalli was till such time an appropriate Mutwalli from the family is made available and this being a temporary arrangement could not have been challenged by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain.

16. It has further urged that again while assailing the order of appointment of the revisionist, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain misrepresented himself as Mutwalli of the Waqf which he was not, from the date of his removal. The appointment of the revisionist, if at all, could have been challenged either by a genuine and a bonafide person having some interest or who had been wronged by the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli by the Waqf Board but in absence of any valid person having a subsisting locus and who could be treated as aggrieved by the revisionist's appointment could not have filed an appeal and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Waqf Tribunal who allowed the appeal preferred at the behest of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, as such the order impugned dated 22.11.2019 deserves to be set aside.

17. Sri J. P. Mathur learned counsel for the third party intervenor (Heena Taiyab) submitted that as per the Waqf deed, the Mutwalli had to be appointed from amongst family. Since, Chaudhary Abdullah 5 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 Hussain was from the family of the Waqif within the prescription as mentioned in the Waqf deed of 1935, he was entitled to be appointed as Mutwalli and even though, he was removed and the challenge to his removal was turned down by the Waqf Tribunal yet the fact remains that the applicant being his daughter traced her lineage to the family of the Waqif hence in her presence, the Board was not justified in appointing the revisionist who is a rank outsider to the family of the Waqif and in such circumstances, the appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli was not just. Considering this aspect, the Waqf Tribunal allowed the appeal. Even though Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain had expired and the applicant being his daughter and having a preference to be appointed as Mutwalli, she could contest these proceedings before this Court on behalf of the Waqf after the death of her father and in such circumstances, the application for substitution/impleadment deserves to be allowed.

18. It has also been urged that once it is admitted to the revisionist that the arrangement made by the Waqf Board for appointing the revisionist was temporary and the third party being the daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain and as she belongs to the family of the Waqif and she presents her claim for being appointed as Mutwalli hence, in such circumstances, the revision deserves to be dismissed and the applicant be appointed as Mutwalli.

19. Sri Farhan Habib, learned counsel for the Board has primarily submitted that the order passed by the Board appointing the revisionist as Mutwalli was only a stop gap arrangement, till such time, any person from the family of the Waqif came forward to seek his appointment. In any case, if the third party so wishes, her case can be considered but as far as the orders passed by the Waqf Tribunal is concerned, the same was passed without considering the facts and not in its correct perspective. Accordingly, the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

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

21. The facts between the parties are not much in dispute. The facts which are undisputed can be summarised as under: 6 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 (i) Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain was the Mutwalli appointed by the Board for the Waqf in question. Upon his removal as Mutwalli, the Board had the power to appoint a Mutwalli. (ii) It is also not disputed that the appeal preferred by Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, against the order of his removal was dismissed by the Waqf Tribunal and the said order was not assailed any further hence, attained finality. (iii) In terms of Section 64 of the Waqf Act, a person removed from the office of Mutwalli is precluded to be considered for reappointment for a period of five years. (iv) It is also not disputed that during pendency of the instant revision, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain has expired. (v) It is also not disputed that the office of Mutwalli is not an office which a person can inherit by ordinary law of succession.

22. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts situation, it will first be appropriate to consider the application filed by Heena Taiyab seeking her substitution/impleadment deceased father Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain.

23. At the outset, it may be noticed that the fact whether the applicant Heena falls within the family of the Waqif and has preference for being appointed as a Mutwalli is to be considered by the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings. This Court exercises limited power i.e. to say it is only the order impugned which is under scrutiny of this Court i.e. whether the order of appointment of the revisionist as Mutwalli was invalid and rightly set aside by the Waqf Tribunal.

24. The issue as to the right of the applicant to be impleaded in a proceedings of this nature in revision without there being any direct interest cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, the Waqf is represented by the revisionist who was the Mutwalli appointed by the Board. The order setting aside that order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is subject to the orders to be passed in this revision and moreover, the revisionist enjoys an interim order 7 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 passed by this Court.

25. Admittedly, Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain did not assail the order of his removal as Mutwalli of the Waqf any further i.e. to say after the dismissal of his appeal, he reconciled to his status of having been removed as Mutwalli. Now after his death, it is not open for any person to claim the right to be impleaded as the party for being considered as a Mutwalli of the Waqf.

26. Any person so intersected can approach the Board concerned and needless to say the said issue would be considered on its own merit. Moreover, the appointment of the revisionist admittedly was only as a stop gap arrangement. Thus, it cannot be countenanced that this Court would appoint the applicant as Mutwalli and as already noticed above that this issue has to be agitated before the Board who would take decision thereof.

27. The office of Mutwalli is not heritable, hence, merely being the daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain does not make the applicant a necessary party nor she can claim any right to the office of Mutwalli by succession. To that extent, the submission of Sri J.P. Mathur cannot be accepted hence the application for impleadment/substitution is rejected. However, mere rejection of this application may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits regarding any right of the application of the applicant for being considered as Mutwalli, if otherwise permissible.

28. In the changed factual scenario occasioned by the death of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain, there is no contest to the appointment of the revisionist. The Board who has appointed the revisionist has not made any adverse submission regarding the order of appointment of revisionist as Mutwalli. This Court had made a specific query to Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel for the Board that what procedure was adopted by the Board for considering the application of the revisionist for being appointed as Mutwalli. Time was granted to Sri Habib to respond and that the hearing was deferred on few occasions to enable the counsel for the Board to update his instructions and produce any material however, none was placed before the Court and Sri Farhan Habib candidly submitted that since the revisionist had moved an application that in itself was the only material available and considered and based on it the revisionist was appointed as a Mutwalli. 8 CLRE No. 111 of 2019

29. Perusal of the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal, it would indicate that the Waqf Tribunal had noted that the Board had assumed that the Waqf in question was Waqf Alal Khair, however, there is no material nor it was put to any test in order to arrive at such a conclusion. It would have been appropriate for the Board to have considered what was the nature of the Waqf, whether it was, Waqf Alal Aulad then the Mutwalli should have been strictly in terms of the Waqf deed from the family of the Waqif. However, the contention that the said Waqf was treated to be as Waqf Alal Khair, of course, this fact too also was require to be ascertained and adjudicated after putting the affected parties to notice. Without a proper inquiry, a finding regarding the status of the Waqif could not have been recorded hence, to that extent the explanation given by the Board treating the Waqif to be Waqf Alal Khair is not sustainable.

30. In the given facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. But at the same time, it is also to be noticed that whether Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain fell within preferential decree of relationship with the family of the Waqif was also to be noticed as it has been disputed by the revisionist. Moreover, there has been no clear indications from the side of the Board in this regard.

31. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted as the Board appointed the revisionist on the basis of just an application before it without putting the vacancy in the office of Mutwalli to notice of the concerned people at large and without ascertaining the valid member available from the family of the Waqif. Moreover, the nature of the Waqf in question was also to be determined, and it could only be done, based on evidence and putting affected persons to notice. In absence of any such legal determination, the order of the Board appointing the revisionist as Mutwalli was not appropriate and is not a validly passed order.

32. In view of the aforesaid, it can safely be said that merely because the revisionist had moved an application before the Waqf Board, he was appointed as Mutwalli without following any due procedure known to law, hence, in the given circumstances, this Court finds that it will be appropriate to issue certain directions to the Board to be kept in mind while considering 9 CLRE No. 111 of 2019 an appropriate person for the office of Mutwalli of the Waqf in question. An endeavor would be made by the Board first to ascertain as to whether Waqf in question is Waqf Alal Khair or Waqf Alal Aulad. While doing so, it will take note of the Waqf deed of 1935 as well as hear the parties concerned including some beneficiaries of the Waqf as well as member from the family the Waqif. Since Heena Taiyab(daughter of Chaudhary Abdullah Hussain) claims to be from family of Waqif, hence, she shall be entitled for hearing while considering the status of the Waqf as noticed above. The Waqf shall also adopt a fair and transparent procedure to consider eligible persons for being appointed as Mutwalli of the Waqf in question. While doing so, the candidature of such persons be considered in terms of the Waqf deed relating to the family of Waqif and also suitability of the person offering himself or herself to be considered as a Mutwalli including the case of Smt. Heena. Appropriate citation can be issued to invite applications even from eligible members professing the faith of Islam having sterling credentials and thereafter the Board may take a considered decision to appoint a Mutwalli. The Waqf Board shall ensure that the entire exercise is completed by

31.03.2026. Thus, till 31.03.2026 or till the appointment of Mutwalli, whichever is earlier, the present revisionist shall continue to act as Mutwalli as a temporary arrangement.

33. The revision is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

34. The record shall be returned forthwith to the Tribunal concerned. December 5, 2025 Harshita. (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench