New Delhi: Claiming the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board for repression and suppression of physical facts, the Allahabad High Court on 30 May imposed Rs 15,000 as a cost on the board.
In doing so, a bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh rejected the claim of the UP Shia Waqf Board, Lucknow at the house of private Imambara and Nawab Mohammad Hussain Khan. An Emmalling refers to a Shia Islamic Congressman Hall or Tirtha, where mourning ceremonies or majlis are held, especially to remember the martyrdom of Imam Hussain during Muharram.
Saying that this is a clear case where the board is guilty of suppression of physical facts “, the court said that such conduct cannot be appreciated by the board, and anyone can be guilty of suppression and hiding” thrown out of litigation at any level “.
Show full article
The court said that the entire case of the Shia Waqf Board could be “rejected alone on this ground”, given the decisions of the top court on the question, it decided to consider all aspects of the current dispute, and before it passed a decision.
Talking to Theprint, Kashif Iqbal and Syed Ali Murtaza were advocated, who appeared in the case for Huma Zaidi, the Nawab MH Khan -owned Nawam -owned Nawab, for Huma Zaidi, said that the matter was generated from a Wakf deed on 27 March 1934, who was in Bareilly in Nawab. “Waqf deed belongs to 17 shops which were adjacent to their kothi or residential premises and essentially, the deed said that these qualities were Waqf properties and one condition was that out of the income generated from these 17 shops, the entire amount would be spent on the maintenance of shops and the Nawab’s Kothi.”
Murtaza stated how this system continued for many years, said that once the Nawab died, his only surviving daughter- Nawab Anwar Jahan used a civil suit in the civil court in Bareilly, demanding an announcement that with the 1934 Waqf deeds, with two other Waqf deeds, with two other Waqf deeds, zero and invited.
“However, the UP Shia Waqf Board contested and lost the case.
To contempt such an act to the law, and issued the order of the Bareilly court, Murtaza said that after the 1952 order, “the board wrote to the concerned District Magistrate, saying that the Nawab’s personal property will remain the property of Waqf, and his daughter could not claim that the IMAMA does not make any construction.”
He said that after contacting the Allahabad High Court, it gave us very important relief that we were asking for.
Also read: Acquisition of WAQF assets by Legislative Diktat – Initial arguments of symbol for petitioners in SC
What was the matter?
In this case, the UP Shia Central Waqf Board was transferred to the court under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, stating that although no appeal will lie against any decision or order of Waqf Tribunal, the High Court can review the records, questions or records related to the case, and either can confirm it or can amend it.
Such a review of Waqf’s decision by the High Courts can be done either if the court starts the process itself, or if an application is made by the Waqf Board or any other victim person.
In this case, the victim, who was suffering from the 2015 order of the Shia Waqf Board, passed by the WAKF Tribunal in this case, as zero, appointing joint Mutawalis or Custodian for “Waqf’s property”, as zero, the board had to contact the court.
The cruelty of the entire case of the board was that the 1952 decisions, which had reduced the 1934 Waqf deed, was only 17 shops in relation to the shops, not in relation to the Nawab’s Imambara. The basis of his argument was that the order of 1952 did not make any obstruction on the Emambara, Nor did it not be the Emambara Waqf.
What was the order?
Initially, the court stated that the board lawyers were unable to give any response and “reduced ignorance”, when asked why the facts were not told about another petition, they filed before the Allahabad High Court on the same issue.
The court stated that such conduct cannot be appreciated, and has been confirmed by the apex court in AV Papayya Women vs. AP government in 2007 and 2013.
After analyzing the order of the 1952 trial court, the High Court concluded that the income of 17 shops of the Nawab was responsible for dividing the residential houses and their shops. Given that the purpose of this Waqf deed was repairing the house and 17 shops, the trial court then concluded that a Waqf could not be made legally because its object was neither sacred or religious nor charitable.
However, the court also noted that the board did not challenge the discovery of the trial court that the Deed was referring to the residential house (Kothi) and 17 shops in 1934.
“In the aforesaid background, this court clearly finds that the trial court did not find the object of the Waqf related to the residential property as holy, religious or charitable and believed that the Waqf was not valid. The first appeal by the board did not challenge it in the first appeal and therefore, the said conclusions were final,” the court said.
In such a situation, the board is directly or indirectly prevented from increasing the same issue, while the court further said, while the Shia Board presented only an undivided document, shown permission allowed by the executive officers to take out the Muharram procession by the Executive Officers, which was a proof of their claim for the property.
Regarding the 2015 order passed by the board appointed by Custodian, the court stated that it was “clearly impregnable for the board that it was appointed to be a difficult appointed in relation to Waqf, when it was held as 1952 as it was held as it was not a valid Waqf and the said discovery received the finality”. It dismissed the board’s petition, costing Rs 15,000.
(Edited by Winnie Mishra)
Also read: What is ‘Waqf-by-User’ and why is it at the center of debate on controversial amendments in Waqf Law