Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioners proceed to say that a certified copy of the above observations was put up before the Wakf Commissioner along with the petitioner's reply and yet he passed an order on 15-12-64 holding that the said building was wakf property, that its alienation was invalid and that it should he recorded and entered as wakf property.

5. It was urged that the Wakf Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide disputed question of title, that he had exceeded the jurisdiction given to him by Section 4 of the Act, that he had misinterpreted Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, it was prayed that the entire proceedings taken by him and the impugned order passed by him on 15-12-1964 should be quashed and he should be prohibited from sending his report to the State Government and the State Government should also be restrained from forwarding it to the Board of Muslim Wakfs. Rajasthan respondent No. 3. It was further prayed that respondent No 3 should be prohibited from examining such report and publishing it in the official gazette.

It is further urged that the Wakf Commissioner had proceeded under Section 4 of the Act that he had jurisdiction to make a survey of the wakf properties in Rajasthan and to "investigate and adjudicate a cause which arose during such enquiry." It is pointed out that the Commissioner was not hound by the order of this Court dated 11-10-62 which was passed in his absence without any notice to him, that after the said order the petitioners had joined the enquiry held by the Commissioner, that the Commissioner after examining the evidence, decided by his order dated 15-12-64 that the disputed properly was wakf property and the alienation by Mutawalli Ashanali Khan was void in law as he had no right to mortgage or alienate the property as a Mutawalli. After making the said order, the Commissioner submitted his survey report to the Government which sent the same to the Board of Wakfs, which, in its turn, published it in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 2-12-1965. It is further contended that since the property has been shown in the list published under Section 5 (2) of the Act, it is for the petitioners to file a suit in a civil Court under Section 6 (1), if they so desire, to obtain a declaration about their title to the properly.