PHOOL MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties in detail at the staye of admission itself. Both the writ - petitions traverse some common facts. With consent of the parties they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Keeping in view the nature of controversy and interest of parties it is desirable to first decide the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2000. C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 2000 :

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by two individuals claiming to be residents of the locality where the property in dispute being claimed by respondent no. 4 (who is one of the petitioners in C.W.J. C. No. 1977/ 2000) is situated and as such they have claimed to be interested persons and have prayed for quashing of a decision of Chairman of the Bihar State Sunny Wakf Board dated17.5.1996 (Annexure -4) and of a consequential letter dated 18.5.96 issued by the Secretary of the said Wakf Board as contained in annexure -5 by which the decision of annexure -4 was communicated to respondent no. 4 and to Haji Md. Nayeem, respondent no. 3 who claimed the lands in dispute comprised in plot nos. 618 and 619 to be a Wakf property and had further claimed to be the Motballi of the said Wakf.

(3.) AFTER considering all the relevant materials and the rival contentions this Court finds no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of petitioners that the Wakf Board or its Chairman had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order contained in annexure -4. On behalf of contesting respondents reliance was rightly placed upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mirza Habib Aga V/s. Karnataka Board of Wakfs (AIR 1990 Karnataka 2999), in support of submission that the Wakf Board has such power under section 40 of the Wakf Act, 1995 which is equivalent to section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1954. A perusal of section 40 itself leaves no doubt that the Board has the necessary power of holding enquiry and deciding a question as to whether a particular property is wakf property or not. It is also not in doubt that the Board had made necessary delegation in favour of the Chairman by its resolution dated 9.6.1973 authorising the Chairman to exercise the power and perform the duties of the Board under the Act in emergent cases. Subsequently the decision of the Chairman was reported to the Board which granted the necessary approval. Thus, on merits this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders. This Court further finds that the writ petitioners have failed to show any legal interest in the subject matter of the dispute and they have also failed to explain the delay of four years.