SHAMIM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICERBIHAR WAQF TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) In the present case, the challenge is to the order passed by the Sunni Waqf Board vide Memo No.177 dated 14.02.2014, which has been affirmed by the Bihar Waqf Tribunal, Patna vide order dated 31.03.2014 passed in Waqf Appeal No.03 of 2013 by which the appellants have been treated to be encroachers on account of wrong entry as a tenant in the Waqf property as the lease has not been approved by the Sunni Waqf Board.

(3.) The claim of the appellants is that they were inducted as tenants on different dates by the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee and they have been paying rent without any default and they cannot be treated as has illegally been inducted as tenants of the shops pertaining to Waqf Estate No.663 which is called as High Court Mazar Waqf Estate, but the claim has been made by the respondents that at the relevant time Md. Israfil Anwar and Md. Mustafa, who had illegally become Joint Secretary and Secretary, allotted the shops to the aforesaid appellants by way of favour as they are closely related to the appellants. Mukhtar Alam (appellant no.3), who is the son of Mustafa, was the Secretary of the Managing Committee, has inducted him as a tenant. Jahan Ara (appellant no.2), who is the mother of Israfil Anwar was the Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee, inducted her as a tenant. Naushad Alam, who is own brother-in-law of Mustafa as well as maternal uncle of Israfil Anwar, all were inducted during the year 1999. The Managing Committee in which Israfil and Mustafa were members inducted appellants as tenant was not approved by the Sunni Waqf Board, later on, the Sunni Waqf Board was constituted, enquiry committee found that the Committee comprising Md. Israfil Anwar and Md. Mustafa wrongly inducted all four persons, were found running shops of Waqf land without any authority and, accordingly, enquiry report was submitted before the C.E.O Waqf Board. A show cause under Section 54 of the Wakf Act was served upon the appellants. They filed joint reply, which the Waqf Board rejected and issued a requisition to S.D.O under Section 55 of the Wakf Act. Whereafter they approached this Court in CWJC No.6416 of 2008 and this Court directed, the Board after giving hearing to the parties, would take decision in accordance with law within a period of four weeks and in the meantime, they would not be disturbed. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. Again a hearing has been given in which the Board considered the objection of the appellants and arrived to a finding that the lease was not approved by the Board, close relative of Secretary and Joint Secretary inducted them as tenants illegally and directed to remove the appellants from the shops within fifteen days. Same view has been taken in appeal, which has been found that the premises in which they were inducted on lease as has been claimed by them is not in consonance with the Rule 56 (3) of the Wakf Act which prescribes that any lease beyond three years without the approval of the Sunni Waqf Board is a nullity and does not create any right in their favour.