Odisha High Court
Religious and Personal LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Reconstitution of a waqf managing committee requires hearing all concerned parties before final decision.

MD. IBRAHIM KHAN vs SAYED ANEES AHMED

Odisha High CourtJUDGMENT: August 31, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Reconstitution of a waqf managing committee requires hearing all concerned parties before final decision.. MD. IBRAHIM KHAN vs SAYED ANEES AHMED. Odisha High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners claimed to be members of the Managing Committee managing Jamia Masjid, Berhampur and its waqf.

Source reference: no citation

They contended that the previous Committee’s tenure expired on 28 February 2026 and that a new Committee had been constituted pursuant to a meeting dated 16 March 2026.

Source reference: p.3, para.3

Opposite Party No.1 had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.11470 of 2026, alleging grievances concerning the Institution and asserting that no Managing Committee existed.

Source reference: p.3, para.3

The writ petition was disposed of on 8 July 2026, without adjudicating the merits, with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer/Administrator of the Odisha Board of Waqf to consider and dispose of the grievance petition within three months.

Source reference: p.3, para.3

Thereafter, the Administrator-cum-Chief Executive Officer issued a notice dated 29 July 2026 for constitution/reconstitution of the Managing Committee, followed by a further notice dated 4 August 2026.

Source reference: p.3, para.4; p.7, para.10

The petitioners challenged the notice in W.P.(C) No.24698 of 2026, but withdrew that petition with liberty to approach the appropriate court.

Source reference: p.4, para.4

They consequently sought review of the order dated 8 July 2026 and a declaration that the subsequent notices were illegal, principally alleging that they had not been impleaded in the original writ petition and had not been given a proper opportunity of hearing.

Source reference: pp.4–6, paras.6–7
02

Issues

Whether the order dated 8 July 2026 disposing of W.P.(C) No.11470 of 2026 disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other ground warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.

Source reference: p.2, para.2; p.7, paras.8–9

Whether the notices issued by the Chief Executive Officer/Administrator for reconstitution of the Managing Committee could be invalidated merely because the petitioners alleged that they had not been heard before issuance of the notices.

Source reference: pp.4–6, para.6; p.7, paras.9–10

Whether the dispute should be resolved by directing the Chief Executive Officer to provide an effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties before taking a final decision on reconstitution of the Managing Committee.

Source reference: p.8, para.11
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing review of judgments and orders on limited grounds such as discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.

Source reference: p.1

It further applied the principle that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reopen the merits of an order where the Court had not adjudicated the underlying dispute.

Source reference: no citation

The Court also relied on the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that affected parties be given an opportunity of hearing before an administrative authority takes a final decision affecting their rights or interests.

Source reference: pp.5–6, para.6; p.8, para.11
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that its order dated 8 July 2026 had expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of Opposite Party No.1’s grievance and had merely directed the Waqf authority to consider and dispose of that grievance in accordance with law.

Source reference: p.3, para.3; p.7, para.8

Since the subsequent notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer in obedience to that direction, the original order contained no error apparent or other ground justifying review.

Source reference: p.7, para.9

The Court also observed that the petitioners had received the notice but had initially challenged it directly instead of presenting their objections before the competent authority.

Source reference: p.7, para.9

Nevertheless, to ensure procedural fairness and resolve the dispute, the Court clarified that the petitioners, Opposite Party No.1 and all other concerned parties must be heard before any final decision regarding reconstitution of the Managing Committee was taken.

Source reference: p.8, para.11
05

Holding

The Review Petition was not allowed on the ground that the order dated 8 July 2026 did not warrant review, as it had neither decided the merits nor directed automatic reconstitution of the Managing Committee.

However, the Court disposed of the Review Petition with a clarification and direction that the petitioners, Opposite Party No.1 and all concerned parties appear before the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Board of Waqf, Cuttack, on 7 September 2026.

Source reference: p.8, paras.11–12

The Chief Executive Officer was directed to provide them an opportunity of hearing and thereafter take a final decision regarding reconstitution of the Managing Committee for proper management and administration of the Institution and its waqf.

Source reference: p.8, paras.11–12
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Odisha High Court

Original Court PDF

MD. IBRAHIM KHANvsSAYED ANEES AHMED

Odisha High Court · August 31, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment