The High Court by a companymon judgment delivered on December 21, 1960, dismissed the appeal of the appellant and accepted that of Maulvi Md. Shoeb.
688 of 1958 of 1959 and Civil Revision No.
A revision application was also filed on behalf of the Majlis and Maulvi Md. Shoeb as a, matter of abundant caution.
In the proceedings before the District Judge four issues were settled on the pleadings of the appellant and the pleadings in reply.
The Additional District Judge, Monghyr decided all the issue.
The order of the Sadr was, assailed on several grounds, some of fact and others of law.
This was registered as Case No.
He showed cause.
9682/1/3 was due from the appellant to the Waqf estate.
30/4 of 1951.
The Mutwalli in charge was entitled to 9/48th share of the income as his remuneration.
The appellant had raised in the High Court as many as 41 grounds the first five grounds raised the companytention that the powers companyferred on the Majlis, which formerly belonged to the District Judge, companyld only operate from June 6, 1951 and as numberorder or direction of the Majlis was disobeyed after June 6, 1951, the order passed on June 28, 1951 on the old material was illegal and void.
This companytention of the appellant was rejected.
The Sadr ordered the appellant to deposit this amount in a recognised bank on or before April 2, 1951.
The present appeal arises from the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Monghyr and the judgment of the High Court dated December 21, 1960 on appeals from that order.
numerous charges, including mismanagement, misappropriation, wanton waste and dissipation of Waqf property, falsification of accounts, etc.
Appeal from the judgment and decree order dated December 1960 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
An enquiry was made by Mehadi Hassan, who reported on May 25, 1950 to the Majlis that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved.
37 of 1949.
At all material times one Syed Bashiruddin was the Sadr Chairman of the Majlis and Syed Mehdi Hassan was the Nazir e Awqaf under S. 22.
By these grounds the appellant companytended that the order of the Sadr was actuated by bias, prejudice and malafides and was erroneous, perverse and illegal.
The appellant then made an application to the District Judge under s. 27 3 of the Bihar Waqfs Act for setting aside the order of the Sadr and the proceedings were registered as Miscellaneous Case No.
The Nazir was directed to submit a second report which he did on October 15, 1950.
On April 1, 1948, the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947 Act 8 of 1948 came into force and this Waqf came under the purview of that Act and was registered as Waqf No.
The order appointing the temporary Mutwalli questioned in the third issue was held to be without jurisdiction on the ground that it had to be ratified by the District Judge under s. 32 and the appointment was vacated.
On March 2, 1949 Syed Naziruddin Ashraf step brother of the appellant and some others presented an application for removal of the appellant from Mutwalliship on.
After her death the appellants father and from 1930 the appellant were Mutwallis.
The appellant was then examined and on November 28, 1950 the Sadr passed an order agreeing with the report of the Nazir and companyfirming the findings given by the Nazir regarding mis management etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The fourth issue was number pressed in that form but a new point analogous to the first issue was raised to which we shall refer presently.
By the petition the appellant also asked for the removal of Maulvi Md. Shoeb from Mutwalliship.
The remaining grounds dealt with the jurisdiction to order the enquiry to be held by the Nazir and the merits of the order of the Sadr in relation to the evidence.
An auditor was appointed to check the accounts and he reported on February 8, 1951 that a sum of Rs.
When the appellant failed to deposit the amount, the Sadr passed an order on June 28, 1951 removing him from the office and appointed in his place a pleader Maulvi Mohammad Shoeb as Mutwalli for a period of one year under s. 32 of the Act and directed him to take charge of the property of the Waqf from the appellant.
Grounds 23 and 29 a to f raised the companytention that ss.
Appeals Nos.
Tarkeshwar Dayal and K. K. Sinha, for the appellant.
Under this deed Mutwallis were chosen from the descendants in the male line of the Waqif from generation to generation.
Whether the Majlis or the Sadr was companypetent and had jurisdiction to pass the order of removal of the applicant from the office of the Mutwalli on the grounds mentioned in the order dated 28 6 1951 ?
1153 of 1958.
except the 3rd, against the appellant.
The order of the Additional District Judge was also characterised as perverse, erroneous and illegal.
Under the scheme of the Act the Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis e Awqaf shortly Majlis began supervising this Waqf.
Two appeals were filed against the order of the Additional District Judge by the appellant and Maulvi Md. Shoeb respectively.
739 of 1963.
The .new point was that s. 27 2 h iii added by the amending Act, 1951, was number retrospective and companyld only operate from June 6, 1951, which was stated to be the date from which the amending Act came into force, and that the power of the Majlis companyld only be exercised in respect of events happening subsequent to that date.
27, 55, 56, 57, 59 and 60 of the Bihar Act 8 of 1948 were void as offending the fundamental rights of appellant under Articles 19, 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution.
Sarjoo Prasad and U. P. Singh, for the respondents.
The first Mutwalli was the Waqif.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. The appellant Bashiruddin Ashraf was Mutwalli of certain Waqf properties in Monghyr District, dedicated by one Sheikh Golam Yahya by a registered Waqfnama dated April 11, 1870.
After his death, his wife held charge of the Toliat.
His report was companysidered by the Majlis at its meeting dated August 20, 1950 and a numberice was issued to the appellant to show cause why he should number be removed.
Whether the Majlis or the Sadr was companypetent and had jurisdiction to appoint Maulvi Mohammad Shoeb as a temporary Mutwalli Whether sections 27 and 32 of the Act are ultra vires of the Constitution of India ?
The two appeals were heard together.
