Waqf authorities must furnish complaint and relied-upon documents to alleged encroachers.

The petitioners were proceeded against under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1955, in relation to E.C. No. 1132 concerning the Osman Mullick Waqf Estate, on the allegation that they were encroachers upon the Waqf property.

They challenged the final hearing notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Auqaf, West Bengal, vide Memo No. 1304(5) dated 12 November 2025, and sought its cancellation or withdrawal.

During the proceedings, the petitioners clarified that their principal grievance was the non-supply of documents, including the complaint, show-cause notice, enquiry notice, enquiry report, and resolution dated 6 November 2025.

The respondent authorities opposed quashing of the hearing notice but stated that they had no objection to supplying the requested documents.

Whether the petitioners were entitled, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, to copies of the complaint and other documents relied upon in the Section 54 Waqf Act proceedings.

Whether the final hearing notice dated 12 November 2025 was liable to be cancelled, rescinded, or withdrawn on account of the alleged non-supply of documents.

The Court applied Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1955, concerning proceedings against alleged encroachers on Waqf property.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, holding that a person proceeded against by the Board of Auqaf must be furnished with the complaint and other relevant documents relied upon in the proceeding, so that the person has a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The Court also directed that any additional documents relied upon by the authorities must be supplied to the petitioners.

The Court found that the petitioners’ central grievance was not merely the existence of the Section 54 proceeding, but their inability to effectively participate in it without access to the relevant papers.

Since the Board was relying on a complaint and related materials to pursue the encroachment proceeding, the principles of natural justice required disclosure of those documents.

The respondents’ submission that they had no objection to supplying the documents reinforced the appropriateness of directing disclosure rather than quashing the hearing notice.

The Court therefore preserved the statutory proceeding while ensuring that the petitioners received the materials necessary to defend themselves.

It directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide, within two weeks, copies of the documents sought in the petitioners’ advocate’s letter dated 10 November 2025, provided such documents existed, and also to supply copies of any other documents relied upon in the proceeding.

Upon receipt of the papers, the petitioners were directed to participate in the Section 54 proceedings in accordance with law and subject to their rights and contentions.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.