Case: Mohd. Qadim Vs. Khurshed Ahmed Hashmi and Another

SHAH, J.1. By our order dated December 1, 1969, we requested the Sunni Central Waqfs Board constituted under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act 16 of 1960, to frame a scheme and recommend to this Court the name of a person who according to them, would be a fit person to be a mutawalli of this Waqf. We observed that in making the recommendation the Board will take into account the extent of the estate, the interest of the beneficiaries, the qualification of the proposed mutawalli and his status and the possibility that he will be able to devote sufficient time to the management of the Waqf and other relevant matters.2. The Board has now submitted a scheme to this Court. No objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant to the provisions of the scheme. The only objection raised by Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the appellant, is to the recommendation that the respondent Khurshed should be appointed a mutawalli. Several grounds have been alleged in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant. It is urged that Nawab Modh. Yusf, grandfather of Khurshed had been guilty of mis-application of the funds of the Waqf and that Ahmed Hashmi, father of Khurshed, was also responsible for misapplication of the funds. But these two persons are dead and we are not concerned, in providing a scheme for ensuing the safety and proper management of the Waqf to make up these old matters in this appeal. The primary question is about the proper management of the Waqf and its affairs. About Khurshed Ahmed Hashmi it was stated by the appellant in the affidavit originally filed by him that the Sunni Central Waqf Board "maintains partiality to Ahmed Hashmi as though it were a natural right of succession". But this would be doing injustice to the recommendation. The Board has not recognised the right of Khurshed Hashmi as a son of Ahmed Hashmi. In a supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the appellant it is alleged that the Waqf was liable to pay large sums of money to the local Municipality and the respondent Khurshed had applied to the Municipality that some vacant land belonging to the Waqf may be taken over in satisfaction of the claim. It is not clear, however, from the record as to when the liability for payment of municipal taxes in respect of which suits had been filed accrued and whether it was by reason of any mismanagement of the affairs of the Waqf that this liability remained unsatisfied. We are unable to hold that merely because a request has been made that a vacant land belonging to the Waqf may be taken over by the Municipality and the liability of the Waqf may be satisfied out of the price is a ground for holding that the recommendation made by the Waqf Board should not be accepted.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]2. The Board has now submitted a scheme to this Court. No objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant to the provisions of the scheme.The only objection raised by Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the appellant, is to the recommendation that the respondent Khurshed should be appointed a mutawalli.Several grounds have been alleged in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant. It is urged that Nawab Modh. Yusf, grandfather of Khurshed had been guilty ofmisapplication of theof the Waqf and that Ahmed Hashmi, father of Khurshed, was also responsible formisapplication of theBut these two persons are dead and we are not concerned, in providing a scheme for ensuing the safety and proper management of the Waqf to make up these old matters in this appeal. The primary question is about the proper management of the Waqf and its affairs. About Khurshed Ahmed Hashmi it was stated by the appellant in the affidavit originally filed by him that the Sunni Central Waqf Board "maintains partiality to Ahmed Hashmi as though it were a natural right of succession". But this would be doing injustice to the recommendation. The Board has not recognised the right of Khurshed Hashmi as a son of Ahmed Hashmi. In a supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the appellant it is alleged that the Waqf was liable to pay large sums of money to the local Municipality and the respondent Khurshed had applied to the Municipality that some vacant land belonging to the Waqf may be taken over in satisfaction of the claim. It is not clear, however, from the record as to when the liability for payment of municipal taxes in respect of which suits had been filed accrued and whether it was by reason of any mismanagement of the affairs of the Waqf that this liability remained unsatisfied. We are unable to hold that merely because a request has been made that a vacant land belonging to the Waqf may be taken over by the Municipality and the liability of the Waqf may be satisfied out of the price is a ground for holding that the recommendation made by the Waqf Board should not be accepted.