Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MARKAZ CONSTRUCTIONS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/08/1996
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)84
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
These petitions are in respect of a proposed lease of
Sugra Humayun Mirze Wakf property for development to the
petitioner. The Mutawalli of the said Wakf sent to the Wakf
Board for approval a proposal For giving on lease the said
Wakf sand for development to one Vallabh Leasing & Finance
Private Limited. The Wakf Board, however, decided to grant a
lease for development to the petitioner. This was challenged
in separate writ petitions by the Mutawalli of the said Wakf
and Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The writ
petitions were allowed. In separate appeals filed by the
petitioners as well as the Wakf Board which were heard
together, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court has given certain directions to the Mutawalli, asking
him, inter alia, to invite fresh offers. The petitioners
have filed these petitions for special leave from the
judgment and order of the Division Bench.
Under Section 36-A sf the Wakf Act, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Wakf Deed, no transfer of any
immovable property of the Wakf by way, inter alia, of a
lease for a period exceeding one year in the case of non-
agricultural land or building, shall be valid without the
previous sanction of the Wakf Board. Rule 12 of the Andhra
Pradesh Wakf Rules, 1974 requires that an application for
sanction under Section 36-A shall be submitted by the
Mutawalli to the Wakf Board and shall contain the
particulars set out therein. The Board shall on receipt of
an application from the Mutawalli, publish in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette and the District Gazette of the district, if
any, in which the property is situate, a notice of the
proposed transaction. The notice published shall contain
sufficient details of the transaction and shall specify a
reasonable time, not being less than 30 days from the date
of the publication of the notice, within which objections,
claims or suggestions may be sent. These shall be duly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
considered by the Board before passing orders thereon and if
deemed necessary, after holding an enquiry, in which case a
notice of not less 7 full days shall be given to the parties
concerned. These belonging to the Wakf is used in the best
interests of the Wakf and any disposal of this property by
the Mutawalli is required to be sanctioned by the Wakf Board
after following the procedure under Rule 12 thus ensuring
that there is a proper examination of the proposal in the
light of the objections, claims or suggestions received.
These have to be considered by the Board, if necessary,
after holding an enquiry. Mutawalli. who is incharge of the
management of the Wakf property would, in such
circumstances, be a party concerned with the disposal of the
Wakf property and the notice would have to be given to him
by the Wakf Board under the provision of sub-rule (4) of
Rule 12. We do not; see why the objections, claims and
suggestions which may be received by tile WaKf Board should
exclude any fresh offers in respect of the said property
also. Rule 12 does not prevent the Wakf Board from examining
such proposals received as per that Rule. The Wakf board,
however must consider the views of the Mutawalli on such
proposals. Looking to the scheme of the provisions, the
provision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that in the transaction of the kind
in question, where a long term lease for construction of a
commercial complex on the Wakf property is proposed to be
issued, the Mutawalli must be given an opportunity to
express his views on the choice of a contractor and the
Wakf, Board cannot decide the question on its own.
The Division Bench has directed the Mutawalli to
advertise the proposal of the petitioner and to invite fresh
offers and place before the Wakf Board for sanction, the
offer that he may consider to be in the best interests of
the Wakf. In the facts and Circumstances this case, the
High Court has directed the petitioner to hand over the
possession of the Wakf property to the Mutawalli and has
directed that the fact that the petitioner had obtained
vacant possession of the property will not be considered to
give an edge to the petitioner while choosing the
appropriate contractor. Looking to all the circumstances, we
do not consider this a matter where intervention under
Article 136 is required.
The special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
In the circumstances. there will be no order as to costs.