U. P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAKF BOARD versus MD. ALIM & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 07-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

810 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
U. P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAKF l'IOARI> 
v. 
Md. ALIM &: ORS. 
May 7, 1971 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVEi\, 11.J 
Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960-Religious Enduwm.m· Ai:t;. 
1861 '1ct 20 of 1863-District Judge has no power to fill in vacancy on.th!!" 
comnutttte constituted ultder the latter A.ct. 
Tho Waqf of tho Durgah at Fatehpuri is one of tho Waqfa to which. 
the provision! of tho Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 applied. When· 
vacancies arose on the committee of Management constituted under 
tbe 
Religious Endowment Act, 1861 (Act 20 of 1863) and these ·wore not filled 
by election in terms of s. 10 of this Act, tho appellant Board, constituted 
under the 1960 Act, filled in tho vacancies acting under tho provisions of 
the Act. Thereupon respondent no. 1 filed an application in tho court of 
tho District Juda• under Act 20 of 1863 to appoint persons to fill in tht 
vacancies. Tho District Judge hold that ho had the power to reconstitut• 
th• managing committee under s. 10 of Act 20 of 1863 and directed that 
the vacancies be filled in according to tho rules. Tho Hlah Court in revi• 
sion came to tho conclusion that there was no provision in tho 1960 Act cor 
rospondina to 1. 13 of Act 20 of 1863 which cast an additional respon· 
sibility on tho committee·to keep in its custody accounts and consequently 
held tbat tho Committee conititutod under Act 20 of 1863 could 1till con· 
tinuo to discharge oomo of the functions assigned to it, and the District 
Judge was thus competent to entertain an .application u11dor 1. 10 thoreol. 
HELD: Tho District Judge had no jurisdiction or power to fill hr 
vacancies on the Committee constituted under the provilions of Act 20> 
of 1863. 
Sections 49 and SO of tho 1960 Act leave no room for doubt that ac· 
counts, which would include books of account, and all relevant records, 
deeds and documents have. to be in Mutawallf• custody and he is bound 
to produce them for inspection by tho Board whenever oo desired and 
Mutawalli accordina to tho definition includes a committee of manaaement. 
Tho Act is oolf contained and makes provision for complete ouperintondoru:e, 
administration and control of the Waqfs over which tho boards establish-
ed under s. 10 of tho 1960 Act, have jurisdiction. 
Therefore, there cannot be an independent oxistelice of a committee-
constitutod under Act 20 of 1863 only for tho purpose of havini custody-
of books of account particularly when the 1960 Act fully contemplatoil 
and provides for the maintcnadt:e, custody etc. of accounts and account 
books by tho mutawalli. Thero is a clear inconsistency between its 11ro· 
visions and those of Act 20 of 1860 relatina to committees, their function-
ing and control. [814F·Hl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR.ISDICTION 
~ Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree da~ 
September 8; 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil. Revisiom 
No. 76 of 1964. 
u. p, SUNNI WAJ:P BOARD v. MOHD. ALlll (Grover,/.) 
8 u 
C. B. Aggarwala, K. L. Hathi, Quayamuddin Shah and P. C. 
& 
Kapoor, for the appellant. 
M. C. Chag/a and S. S. Shukla, for respondent No. l(ii). 
S. K. Bagga and s. Bagga, for respondent Nos. 2(i) to (iii). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover,. J~This is an appeal by special leave from a judg· 
ment of the Allahabad High Court made in exercise of the revi· 
sional jurisdiction. 
The appellant is a statutory board established under the pro-
visions of s. 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. 
hereinafter called the 'Act'. The Act applies to all waqfs which 
at the time of its coming into force were under the ~uperintendence 
of the Sunni Central Board and the Shia Central Board consti· 
luted under the U.P. Muslims Waqfs Act 1936. 
The present proceedings relate to the famous Durgah of 
Hazrat Sheikh Saleem Cbishti at Fatehpuri Sikri in the district 
of Agra said to have been established by Emperor Akbar. The 
Durgah was administered originally by the Moghuls and there-
after by the Board of Revenue established by the British Govern· 
ment under the Bengal Regulation No. 19 of 1810. Subsequently 
the Religious Endowment Act 1861 (Act 20 of 1863) was passed 
which provided for the management of mosques, temples and 
other religious establishments. Section 7 of Act 20 of 1863 pro· 
vided for the appointment and constitution of the committees 
which were to be appointed by the State . Government for the 
management of religio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.