1 2025:CGHC:57435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A No.224 of 2025 Sher Ali S/o Late Chandshah Aged About 54 Years Gaddi Naseen- Hazrat Baba Syed Shah Sailani Dargah, Supela, Address- Qtr No. 143/2, Mazar Kshetra Parisar, G.E. Road, Camp-1, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh Rajya Wakf Board Through The Chief Executive Officer, Office- Chhattisgarh Rajya Wakf Board, In Front Of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Statute, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Chhattisgarh Rajya Wakf Board Through The President, Office- Chhattisgarh Rajya Wakf Board, In Front Of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Statute, Collectorate Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Cum Additional Survey Commissioner, Wakf, Tahsil And District Durg, SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.12.09 11:00:54 +0530 2 C.G. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) And Assistant Survey Commissioner, Wakf Durg, District Durg, C.G. 5 - The Additional Tahsildar Office Of Sub Tahsil Bhilai Nagar, Nagar Nigam Parisar Supela, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. 6 - S. K. Mobin @ Sheikh Babar S/o Not Known R/o Qtr No.16/B, Street 16, Sector-2, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 to 5/State: Shri Rajeev Bharat, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 83(9) of The Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 ( for short ‘the Act of 1995’) [the title of the Act has been amended vide Waqf (Amendment) Act No.14 of 2025] (it has been termed as Waqf Act, 1995 in the Appeal) assailing the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Waqf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in the matter of Sher Ali vs. C.G Rajya Waqf Board & 5 Others in M.J.C No.11/2025 whereby, 3 the application preferred by the Appellant under Order 39 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC, was dismissed. 2. 2. The relevant facts bearing on the adjudication of the instant case are that ‘Waqf’ has been registered by the Madhya Pradesh as Waqf Board, Bhopal vide Certificate No.479 and the date of registration is 14.10.1969 (for short ‘the Board’) by name “Mazar Sharif Hazrat Sayed Shah...(illegible) Jilani”, Raipur Road, Durg and the name of Mutawalli Committee Intizamia the Sadar of which is Seth Suleman Bhai as per Annexure A/5. It has been averred in the application filed under Section 83(2) of the Act of 1995 that former Mutawalli namely Haider Ali, who has been appointed by the Board, has died on 16.04.2021 and after his death, Dargah Sharif was maintained by the Appellant, who has been appointed as Gaddi Nashin as per succession and a new Committee has been constituted and the said succession and consequential change in management has been duly communicated to the Board in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1995. However, the Board has, in an arbitrary manner, exercised its power under Section 67 of the said Act and without assigning any reason, constituted an ad hoc Committee vide order dated 17.04.2025. The said order was challenged by the Appellant before the Tribunal for which, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction as well as an application under Order 39 Rule 3 r/w 4 Section 151 for ex parte injunction were filed and the ex parte injuction application has been dismissed therein by observing that “without providing an adequate opportunity, it is not possible to grant an ex parte injunction”. 3. Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Board has exercised its power arbitrarily, even though Section 67 of the Act of 1995 stipulates that the power therein is confined to supervision and supersession of the Committee of Management. He further submits that no communication or show-cause notice was issued stating that the Committee is not functioning in consonance with the object of the Waqf and the Board has constituted new ad hoc Committee, therefore, the order itself is a nullity. He further submits that for filing of the said application, provision of Section 89 of the said Act would not be applicable and if any order is passed while exercising the power under Section 67, the aggrieved person may prefer an Appeal in terms of Section 67(4) of the Act of 1995 before the Tribunal. He further submits that no provision, whatsoever, has been mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the application filed under Section 83(2) of the Act of 1995 is maintainable and the bar under Section 89 would not be attracted. He lastly submits that as no statutory notice is necessary and the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the 5 application on such score, therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Conversely, Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Board submits that as per the averments made in the application itself, Mutwalli Haider Ali died on 16.04.2021 but no proper intimation of the consequential change was furnished within three months of its occurrence as mandated under Section 42 of the Act of 1995. He further submits that though a new Committee has been constituted later on, but the intimation thereof was given only on 01.01.2025. He further submits that upon notice of the said fact, the Board, for proper management of “Dargah”, rejected the said Committee on the ground that it had not been constituted in a lawful manner and consequently appointed an ad hoc Committee, therefore, exercise of the power by the Board is strictly in terms of the scheme of the enactment and the laudable object of the Act of 1995. 5. During the course of submissions, when a query was put to Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant as to whether any Waqf deed exists, he fairly admitted that he is not aware of the execution of any such deed, even though the document (if any, executed thereof) is material for establishing dedication of the property, creation of the Waqf and management of the Waqf property. 6 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record with utmost circumspection. 7. According to Provision of the Act of 1995, wide power has been given to the Board for effective and proper management of Waqf. After the death of Mutawalli Haider Ali on 16.04.2021, as per the averments of the application, the said appointment was made by the Board itself but no proper intimation of the consequential change was furnished timely and a new Committee has been constituted. The Tribunal ought to have examined the Waqf deed, if any, to ascertain as to whether the Committee had been constituted in a lawful manner. If an ad hoc Committee has been constituted for the reason of not furnishing such a material document for its proper management, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out in favour of the Appellant for grant of an ex parte interim injunction. 8. Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC strictly on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya