- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.C. Srivastava and Sri Mohd. Sayeed for the Waqf Board. The petitioner challenges the appointment of Mutawalli on the ground that the land in question is an agricultural land, which could not constitute the waqf property and as a matter of fact, no waqf was created at all by the tenure holders thereof. Learned Counsel draws the attention of the Court to the proceedings arising out of section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, in which, against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, a writ petition was filed before this Court, in which an interim order of stay was passed.
(2.) Sri Mohd. Sayeed, appearing for the Waqf Board, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason; (1) the question whether the property in question is a waqf property or not, can be decided, either by the Board or by the Tribunal; and (2) proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would not give any declaration about the property being waqf or not, more so when the Waqf Board is not a party in those proceedings.
(3.) Sri Sayeed further says that even appointment of Mutawalli can be challenged before the Tribunal by making reference under section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995.;