Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The dispute concerned the management of the famous Durgah of Hazrat Sheikh Saleem Chishti at Fatehpuri Sikri, Agra, a waqf registered under the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 and governed by the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. The appellant, U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board, was a statutory board established under Section 10 of the 1960 Act. The respondent No.1, Md. Alim and others, challenged actions taken by the Board to fill vacancies in the management committee that had originally been constituted under the Religious Endowment Act, 1861. Historically, the Durgah was administered by the Moghuls, then by the Board of Revenue under Bengal Regulation No. 19 of 1810, and later under the Religious Endowment Act, 1861. Section 7 of that Act provided for appointment of committees by the State Government, and Section 10 provided for elections to fill vacancies. A committee was formed under rules notified in 1925 and 1927. The term of four members of this committee expired in 1962. As the vacancies were not filled by election, the President of the appellant Board filled them acting under the 1960 Act. Respondent No.1 then filed an application before the District Judge, Agra, purportedly under Act 20 of 1863, seeking appointment of persons to fill the vacancies. The District Judge held he had power under Section 10 of Act 20 of 1863 and directed vacancies to be filled according to rules. The High Court in revision held that although general superintendence vested in the Board, there was no provision in the 1960 Act corresponding to Section 13 of Act 20 of 1863, which required the committee to keep custody of accounts; therefore, the old committee could continue for that limited purpose and the District Judge was competent. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court observed that the 1960 Act was enacted to provide for better governance, administration and supervision of waqf in Uttar Pradesh. Section 3(5) defines mutawalli to include a committee of management. Section 19 details the Board's functions, including inspection of waqf properties, accounts, records, and documents; investigation and calling for accounts; arranging audits; administering waqf funds; and keeping regular accounts. Sections 48 to 50 cover appointment and duties of mutawallis, requiring them to carry out Board's directions, furnish returns, allow inspection, prepare budgets, and submit statements of accounts. Section 85(1) states that nothing in any other enactment inconsistent with the Act shall apply. The Court held that the Act is self-contained and provides complete superintendence, administration and control of waqfs. Sections 49 and 50 leave no doubt that accounts and relevant records must be in the mutawalli's custody and produced for Board inspection. Since mutawalli includes a committee of management, there cannot be independent existence of a committee under Act 20 of 1863 solely for custody of books of account. The Court found a clear inconsistency between the 1960 Act and Act 20 of 1863 regarding committees, their functioning and control. Accordingly, the District Judge had no jurisdiction or power to fill vacancies under Section 10 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1861. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court and District Judge orders were effectively set aside.
Headnote
A) Waqf Law - Statutory Supersession of Earlier Enactments - Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, Sections 3(5), 10, 19, 27, 48, 49, 50, 85(1); Religious Endowment Act, 1861, Sections 3, 7, 10, 13 - The 1960 Act is self-contained and provides for complete superintendence, administration and control of waqfs - The Court found clear inconsistency between the 1960 Act's provisions and Act 20 of 1863 regarding committees, their functioning and control; consequently, the earlier Act cannot independently apply to waqfs governed by the 1960 Act. Held that a committee under Act 20 of 1863 cannot have independent existence for custody of accounts when the 1960 Act fully contemplates maintenance, custody and production of accounts by the mutawalli. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Religious Endowments - Committee Vacancies and District Judge Jurisdiction - Religious Endowment Act, 1861, Section 10; Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, Sections 10, 19, 85(1) - District Judge lacked jurisdiction to fill vacancies in committee constituted under Act 20 of 1863 - Since general superintendence vested in the statutory board, the old committee's functions were superseded; appointment by court would be inconsistent with board's authority under the 1960 Act. Held that the District Judge had no power under Section 10 of Act 20 of 1863 after the 1960 Act came into force. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Waqf Administration - Accounts, Records and Mutawalli Duties - Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, Sections 49, 50; Religious Endowment Act, 1861, Section 13 - Accounts custody must remain with the mutawalli, which includes a committee of management - Sections 49 and 50 require accounts and relevant records to be kept by the mutawalli and produced for board inspection; no separate committee under the old Act can retain custody under Section 13. Held that the High Court's reasoning was erroneous. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Statutory Interpretation - Inconsistency and Implied Repeal - Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, Section 85(1); Religious Endowment Act, 1861 - Section 85(1) expressly overrides inconsistent provisions in other enactments - The 1960 Act was passed with the President's approval and is a complete code; any inconsistent provision in Act 20 of 1863 is inapplicable to waqfs under the 1960 Act. Held that the appeal is allowed and the orders below set aside. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction or power to fill vacancies in a committee constituted under the Religious Endowment Act, 1861 after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, particularly when the 1960 Act vested complete control in the statutory Wakf Board and defined mutawalli to include a committee of management.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court and District Judge orders, and held District Judge had no jurisdiction or power to fill vacancies on committee constituted under Act 20 of 1863.
Law Points
- Uttar Pradesh Muslim Waqfs Act
- 1960 is a self-contained code
- District Judge lacks jurisdiction under Religious Endowment Act
- 1861 after 1960 Act
- accounts custody vested in mutawalli including committee of management
- inconsistent provisions of older Act impliedly repealed by Section 85(1) of 1960 Act
- statutory board has complete superintendence administration and control over waqfs
