Decided on February 18,2021

Chief Executive Officer, Meghalaya Board Of Waqf Appellant


BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the papers before us, it appears that the instant writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.107 of 2016 (Shri Md. Saleem Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors). The appellant before us is the Chief Executive Officer, Meghalaya Board of Waqf, Shillong (being respondent No.3 in the writ proceeding). For convenience, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2018, is setout hereinbelow in its entirety:- 'Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 4 and Ms. Tenzing Yangkyi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3.
(2.) The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: 'This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Prohibition or any other writ or directions/ orders. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the owner of the property, alleged to be as Wakf property under administration and control of the Meghalaya State Wakf Board. That the Meghalaya Wakf Board (Respondent No. 2), not acting in compliance with the express provision of the Wakf Act of 1954 as well the Act of 1995 as amended by the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2013, has been managing the Wakf properties illegally constituted. Furthermore, no survey of Wakf or registration of Wakfs has been done in the State of Meghalaya till date and the Respondent 2 authorities has been illegally usurping office and continuing to exercise powers under the Wakf Act, inspite of there being no rules/regulations, etc for exercise of powers by the Meghalaya Board of Wakf. Thus being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved by the absolute non observance of the statutory requirements stipulate under law by the Respondents and illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the Respondents, the petitioner approaches this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his genuine grievances.'
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the Government has failed to constitute the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs property as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995. As a result, the Wakf Board unnecessarily harassed the petitioner, though it does not fall as the Wakf property.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.