Waqf Board must review disputed property listings and pass a reasoned order after hearing.

The petitioner claimed title to 1.40 acres in Survey No. 308/1, acquired by his great-grandmother in 1924 and later settled on his grandfather in 1947.

After 23 cents were acquired for a National Highway, the petitioner sought to alienate the remaining property.

The Sub-Registrar issued a refusal check slip because the property appeared in the fifth respondent Waqf’s property proforma.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court directed consideration of the registration issue; the District Registrar subsequently passed an order, but registration was still refused.

The petitioner relied on a retired Tahsildar’s 2023 report, which stated that the Waqf was not in possession, no records substantiated its claim, and recommended a No Objection Certificate (NOC).

He sought a direction requiring the Waqf Board to issue the NOC.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction compelling the Waqf Board to issue an NOC for the property.

Whether the Waqf Board should consider the Tahsildar’s report and ascertain the basis for including Survey No. 308/1 in the fifth respondent Waqf’s property proforma.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court may direct a public authority to consider relevant material and make a decision in accordance with law, without itself determining the underlying claim where that decision falls within the authority’s competence.

The Court also considered Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2023) 16 SCC 264, which held that, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Acts discussed in that case, the prescribed survey process is a prerequisite to publication of a list of Waqfs, and that a notification alone is not conclusive proof that land is Waqf property.

The judgment directed the Board to take that precedent into account when deciding the petitioner’s claim.

The Court noted that the Tahsildar’s report had not been acted upon and that the Board was competent to decide the NOC issue.

Rather than grant the NOC or determine title, the Court required the Board to assess the report, examine the basis for the property’s inclusion in the Waqf proforma, and apply the Supreme Court’s decision.

Because the fifth respondent’s Waqf interest could be affected, it was to receive an opportunity to be heard before a final order.

It directed the first respondent Waqf Board to consider the Tahsildar’s report, ascertain the basis for including Survey No. 308/1 in the Waqf proforma, hear the fifth respondent, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.