Y.S. Tajuddin vs The State Of A P & Ors.

Assailing the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in registering the Muntakhab through the proceedings dated 03.04.2025 and consequently issuing the Management Committee proceedings dated 07.10.2025, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed.

Heard Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board, and Ms.Divya Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, submitted that, contrary to the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, one of the member of the trustee i.e., respondent No.4 has proposed to give one of the trust properties to the Waqf, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3. Basing on the said proposal, the Waqf Board passed a resolution dated 02.04.2025 proposing to register the subject property in question under Sections 40 and 41 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and basing on the said resolution, a Muntakhab has been issued, which is impugned in the present writ petition, dated 03.04.2025. He further submitted that the 4^th respondent has no right to hand over the property in question to the Waqf Board independently and that Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is very clear to the said effect. He drew the attention of the Court to Section 48 and also submitted that the said action is contrary to the trust deed executed in the year 2014. The original trust deed was created in the year 2014, dated 02.09.2014. Having knowledge about the trust deed, the Board has accepted the proposal made by the 4^th respondent and issued the Muntakhab. In the said circumstances, if the Muntakhab impugned herein is allowed to subsist, the purpose of creating trust would be defeated and further, the properties would be taken away by the Waqf. In the said circumstances, prayed to set aside the Muntakhab.

On the other hand, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that pursuant to the impugned Muntakhab, a Gazette notification dated 01.05.2024 was already issued and the same has been placed on record along with memo. He further contended that the petitioner has not questioned the resolution passed by the Board dated 02.04.2025 or the Gazette notification and has simply questioned the Muntakhab dated 03.04.2025, which is not proper. On the said sole ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Ms.Divya Prasad, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, submitted that all the allegations that have been raised against the 4^th respondent are not tenable and that the petitioner has no locus to find fault with the action of the 4^th respondent. She further submitted that, if the petitioner really finds fault with the action of the 4^th respondent, he would have resorted to take legal steps against the 4^th respondent. She further submitted that the petitioner did not even question the Gazette notification, as such, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner did not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4^th respondent, with a malafide intention, has created a Trust in the name of a trust called “SIDDIQUE-MOSQUE-TRUST”; however, the properties covered under the said deed dated 15.06.2019 are in no way concerned with the subject trust deed dated 02.09.2014. He further submitted that the intention behind creating such trust deed itself shows the conduct of the 4^th respondent. The earlier trust, which was formed in the year 2014, is in the name of “Siddique Mosque Trust”. The root cause for issuing the notification is the Muntakhab and, in the said circumstances, questioning the Muntakhab itself is sufficient and there is no necessity to question the Gazette notification issued subsequent to the Muntakhab. If the Muntakhab is set aside by this Court, the consequential notification will automatically stand cancelled. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that a trust has been formed by the founders under the trust deed dated 02.09.2014 by one B.Abdul Latheef and Y.S.Tajuddin. The 1^st party therein is the 4^th respondent in the present writ petition. The sole ground on which the present writ petition came to be filed is that the 4^th respondent has given one of the properties covered by the trust deed dated 02.09.2014 to the Waqf, and the said proposal has been accepted contrary to the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, more particularly, Section 48. The relevant provision is herein extracted for quick reference:-

By virtue of Section 48, co-trustee cannot act singly. The Chief Executive Officer issued the Muntakhab dated 03.04.2025 (impugned proceedings) pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board vide Resolution No.70/2025 dated 02.04.2025. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the said Muntakhab, a Gazette notification has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Gazette notification was issued. However, the said Gazette notification was not placed on record by either parties.

This Court has to answer whether the petitioner is only required to question the Muntakhab or whether he must also question the resolution dated 02.04.2025 and subsequent Gazette notification.

As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, it clearly indicates that the root cause is the resolution dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Waqf Board. It is also not in dispute that once a resolution is passed by the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, who is competent under the Waqf Act, 1995, has to implement the said resolution after it is passed in accordance with law. It is also not in dispute that the said resolution can be obtained by any individual under the Right to Information Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not obtained the said resolution under the Right to Information Act and has not questioned the same. When the resolution is the root cause for issuing Muntakhab, without questioning the resolution, in the firm opinion of this Court, the writ cannot be entertained when the petitioner has only questioned Muntakhab. Even otherwise, pursuant to the Muntakhab dated 03.04.2025, which is the impugned proceeding, a Gazette notification came to be issued, and the same was also not questioned. In fact, the said Gazette notification also ought to have been questioned by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the resolution nor the Gazette notification need to be questioned and that questioning Muntakhab alone is sufficient cannot be accepted. In the firm opinion of this Court, the Muntakhab would serve as a foundational document, whereas the Gazette notification is a distinct formal statutory instrument which carries independent legal weight and creates a public legal presumption which would have legal binding. The affected party can question the correctness of the contents of the Gazette notification through established legal procedures, but cannot seek de-notification of the property purely based on the attack made on the Muntakhab without specific prayer to quash the notification. The Gazette notification creates a presumption of public notice. The affected individuals must explicitly challenge the notification itself before the competent Court or Tribunal to displace that legal presumption, rather than just pointing out the flaws in the Muntakhab. In the present case, by questioning the Muntakhab, the petitioner is directly asking for de-notification of the Muntakhab, which cannot be sustained, as stated supra. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that questioning Muntakhab alone is sufficient is untenable, and the petitioner has to question the Gazette notification also. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the said grounds.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.