Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied)

57. This indicates that it is not only the Defendant No. 2, but also the other defendants i.e., the Defendant Nos.4 to 9 (since the Defendant No. 3 died, who sailed with the plaintiff-society), have signed the Ex.A-31. However, the Defendant No. 2 conveniently denied everything. Therefore, having admitted the signature of the Defendant No. 2 and also others on Ex.A-31, it is not open for the Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 to contend that Ex.A-31 is a fabricated one.

58. Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 1-Dargah, contended that the letter, dated 10-7-1982, under Ex.A-30, allegedly addressed by the Defendant No. 1-Dargah to pay an advance of Rs. 4,00,000/- and enter into a written agreement within thirty days, does not refer to the proceedings, dated 30-6-1982, under Ex.A-49, issued by the Defendant No. 10-Wakf Board, permitting the Defendant No. 1-Dargah to alienate the wakf properties in favour of the plaintiff-society.

113. Here, it may be noted that when it was agreed both by the plaintiff-society and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 that the said agreement of sale, dated 2-8-1982, under Ex.A-31, was subject to approval of the Government, it should be construed that for alienation of the wakf properties of the Defendant No. 1-Dargah, the approval of the Government is imperative. If that be the case, the same principle applies to the alienation of the wakf properties in favour of the Defendant No. l3-society also.

135. The sale transaction of the wakf properties by the Defendant No. 1-Dargah, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a Policy, which imperatively requires prior sanction of the Government, nor it is for the Government to interfere with such transactions by way of issuing G.Os., treating them as 'directions', touching upon the policy of the Defendant No. 10-Wakf Board.

136. The above observations are clear, inasmuch as, a specific provision has been incorporated under Section 36-A of the Act. In our considered view, the power conferred upon the Wakf Board, under Section 36-A of the Act, and the powers conferred upon the Government, under Sections 62, 63, 64 and 66-A of Chapter-VIII of the Act, are distinct. In other words, Section 36-A of the Act, is specifically meant for alienation of the wakf properties. By virtue of the language incorporated in Sections 62, 63, 64 and 66-A of the Act, on one hand, and Section 36-A of the Act, on the other, by necessary implication, there is no other way than to construe that the Government has no jurisdiction in according permission to the Defendant No. 1-Dargah to alienate the wakf properties. Therefore, issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 773, under Ex.B-12, in fact, is not statutorily required in case of alienation of wakf properties. On the other hand, it is only the Defendant No. 10-Wakf Board, which is relevant.

158. Nevertheless, it is needless to say that there cannot be two stands on behalf of the Defendant Nos.2 to 9, since there is a clause in the suit agreement of sale, dated 2-8-1982, under Ex.A-31, to the effect that the sale is subject to the approval by the Government. As already discussed in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment, even though there is a clause mentioned in the agreement of sale, dated 2-8-1982, under Ex.A-31, between the plaintiff-society and the Defendant Nos.2 to 9, about the necessity of approval by the Government, in fact, neither there is any need for obtaining such permission from the Government nor can be exercised by the Government. It is already noticed that the Government had the power only under Sections 62, 63, 64 and 66-A of Chapter-VIII of the Act, which are only supervisory in nature, and necessary directions can be given only on the policy decisions of the Wakf Board. All other functions are carved out under Section 36-A of the Act, read with Rule 12(2) and (4) of the Rules made there under conferring the jurisdiction only on the Wakf Board. In fact, adding such a clause in the agreement of sale, dated 2-8-1982, under Ex.A-31, amounts to conferring the jurisdiction on the Government, stripping of the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board, which is not permissible under law. That is the reason why, we have already expressed our view that the Defendant No. 10-Wakf Board had shrunk its jurisdiction to a decimal level by simply informing about the permission granted by the Government to the Defendant Nos.2 to 9 to alienate the wakf properties of the Defendant No. 1-Dargah, without application of mind, and the same amounts to refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, whether or not the Government had accorded sanction to alienate the wakf properties of the Defendant No. 1-Dargah, since the Defendant No. 10-Wakf Board failed to exercise its jurisdiction, conferred under Section 36-A of the Act, the very sanction accorded by the Government is otiose. In other words, there is a vital missing of jurisdictional link in the entire sale transaction in favour of the Defendant No. l3-society.