RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) MR . Z. Jilani, learned Counsel for the revisionist is pres­ent, however, none responds for the op­posite parties. The case is quite old and pertains to the year 1995. Therefore, I pro­ceed to hearing the case finally.
(2.) IT has been stated by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that proceedings have been initiated under section 55 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act for the removal of Sri Mahboob Ali Shah from the tauliat of Waqf Nos. 57 and 58-Kheri, which was registered at the office of the Waqf Board in the year 1981 and given registration Nos. 57 and 58-Kheri. While -Mahboob Ali Shah was working as Mutawalli of these Waqfs, his younger brother Sri Ahmad Husain Shah moved an application complaining against Mutawalli, which was enquired and on the basis of enquiry, six charges were framed and the term of Mahboob Ali Shah was lastly extended on 1.8.1986 for a period of three years, which was expired on 31.7.1989 and as such, vide order dated 15.6.1990, Sri Ahmad Husain Shah was ap­pointed as Mutawalli for the aforesaid Waqfs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, reference has been preferred under section 17 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. After evidence led by the parties, following issues were framed: - @Hindi@ A perusal of all issues it reflects that is­sue No. 1 relates as to whether the removal of Mahboob Ali Shah from the post of Mu­tawalli is in accordance with the provisions of law or not. A finding of fact has been recorded that the removal of Mahboob Ali Shah from the post of Mutawalli is not in accordance with law. The Trial Court has lost sight of the fact that there was no order of removal of Mutawalli, but his term has not been extended on 31.7.1989. It is only on the vacancy created therein, Sri Ahmad Husain Shah has been appointed as Mu­tawalli.
(3.) IN view of the provisions of sec­tion 20 of the U. P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, the Board may delegate to the Presi­dent of to the Secretary or any other ser­vant of the Board or to any member, such of its powers and duties under the Act, as it may deem necessary, may likewise with­draw any such delegation.;