Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. However, since the petitioner is closely concerned to get proposed declaration, rather negative declaration, as against the opposite parties in one hand, and, proposed also to get declaration that the auqaf estate is part and parcel of the auqaf estate of Abdul Gaffar and another as was enrolled in the year 2007 of which the petitioner is the Mutawalli, this Court already discussed about the liberty and power available to the Board of Auqaf under Section 41 of the Act for changing the name of auqaf for any relevant purpose when such auqaf is public auqaf and not auqaf-al-al-aulad. The petitioner has no locus standi to poke nose into the acts and activities of the Board of Auqaf, provided any such act of the Board is not proved against the policy or is detrimental. By the resolution dated November 05, 2009 as was on November 26, 2009, such change of name in the auqaf had been taken place. Therefore, the suit having been filed on November 23, 2009 and the Act and action of the Auqaf Board having not being proved as any illegal act of devoid of intention of the occupier in between the period or at any point of time so far learned Tribunal rightly declined the first part of the declaration as sought for in prayer (a) of the plaint.

21. It was held that the auqaf in question was not private one. Now in respect of the second part of the prayer of declaration so far as declaration of the petition as Mutawalli of the auqaf property, was also rightly declined. Because the auqaf property in question was public auqaf and not a private auqaf to maintain as wakf-al- al-aulad. As there was vacancy in the office of Mutawalli of the Auqaf since after its enrolment in the year 2007 it ought to be made functional under the care and custody of some one. The Board accordingly exercising its jurisdiction under Section 63 of the Act took the resolution on November 05, 2009, which was confirmed by subsequent meeting, held on November 26, 2009. In the prayer portion of the plaint or even in the pleadings the petitioner did not assert and could not adduce any cogent and legal evidence to that extent that the act and action of the Board of Auqaf as held under Section 63 read with Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act was illegal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly also declined the prayer (b), which was sought for in the status of negative declaration. As a consequence thereof other consequential reliefs as sought for were being not available to the petitioner the suit was dismissed by the learned Tribunal in correct direction by deciding the remaining issues appropriately. Thus in the decision making process this Court taking note of the fact and it's relevant laws having not found any lapses in such decision making process the judgment dated January 18, 2016 is upheld and the revisional application, being C.O. 2921 dated August 03, 2016 stands dismissed.