Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Wakfs/ Waqfs Ordinance (I of 1962) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 2(9), 62(2), 64(1) |
Since the appellants are neither strangers nor trespassers as regard the waqf property, rather being the tenants of the Waqf Estate and the said tenancy having not been terminated the order of the Administrator of Waqf for eviction of the appellants as per provision of section 64(1) of the Ordinance cannot be considered as legal, rather the said order is a misconceived one. As the appellants are tenants of the waqf estate and that even if the tenancy is terminated, the appellants are not liable to be evicted resorting to provision of section 64(1) of the ordinance since the relationship between the appellants and the waqf estate is governed by the provision of premises Rent Control Act, 1991. Md. Yousuf vs. Bangladesh (Md. RuhulAmin J) (Civil) 3ADC 5 |
Md. Yousuf vs. Bangladesh | 3 ADC 5 |
Section 2(10) |
Basic Principles of Waqf–
|
Hafizuddin(Md.) =VS= Mozaffor Mridha | 5 LM (AD) 105 |
Section 2(9), 62(2), 64(1) |
Since the appellants are neither strangers nor trespassers as regard the waqf property, rather being the tenants of the Waqf Estate and the said tenancy having not been terminated the order of the Administrator of Waqf for eviction of the appellants as per provision of section 64(1) of the Ordinance cannot be considered as legal, rather the said order is a misconceived one. As the appellants are tenants of the waqf estate and that even if the tenancy is terminated, the appellants are not liable to be evicted resorting to provision of section 64(1) of the ordinance since the relationship between the appellants and the waqf estate is governed by the provision of premises Rent Control Act, 1991. Md. Yousuf vs Bangladesh (Md. RuhulAmin J) (Civil) 3 ADC 5 |
Md. Yousuf vs Bangladesh | 3 ADC 5 |
Sections 27 and 32 |
Removal of Motwalli- Appointment of joint Motwalli— Power of Wakf
Administrator—
|
Mohammad AH Vs. Administrator of Wakf, Government of Bangladesh and others. | 2 MLR (AD) 395 |
Section 32(2) |
Maintainability of writ against dismissal of Mutwalli—
|
Tafyul Huq Sarker Vs. Bangladesh and others | 4 MLR (AD) 19 |
Section 32(I) |
Administrator of Wakf acts as a civil court regarding removal of mutwalli. Shauket Ali Vs. Administrator of Wakfs (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 276. |
Shauket Ali Vs. Administrator of Wakfs | 29 DLR (SC) 276 |
Section 32, (1) (4) |
The remedy of appeal provided in subsection (2) of section 32 of the Ordinance was not an equally efficacious remedy since the appellant would have to vacate his office of Mutawalli as a condition precedent to such appeal. Tafiul Huq Sarker vs Bangladesh (Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J)(Civil) 2ADC 254 |
Tafiul Huq Sarker vs Bangladesh | 2 ADC 254 |
Section 32 |
Some of the Monthly tenants of the Waqf properties defaulted in payment of
rent. So suit was filed for eviction against those tenants from the Waqf
property.
|
Mosammat Parveen Sultana vs. Mosammat Sahera Khatun & another | 4 ADC 889 |
Section 32(1) |
When a Mutwalli is removed under section 32(1) of the Waqf Ordinance he can file a suit or he can file a writ petition but once he filed a suit challenging such order and obtained a decree of rejection of plaint he cannot file writ petition keeping the order of rejection alive. Abdul Jabbar Mondal (Md) vs Administrator of Waqfs 10 BLC (AD) 118. |
Abdul Jabbar Mondal (Md) vs Administrator of Waqfs | 10 BLC (AD) 118 |
Sections 32 and 43 |
If a Mutwalli is removed and he is aggrieved he can prefer appeal under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Ordinance. The petitioner not having taken any recourse of such provision instead invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution which is not in accordance with law and, as such, the petition was not maintainable. Safiuddin Ahmed vs Administrator of Waqf 14 BLC (AD) 94. |
Safiuddin Ahmed vs Administrator of Waqf | 14 BLC (AD) 94 |
Sections 32, 43 and 44 |
‘Official Mutawalli’—Whether the appointment of a committee of persons offends the provisions for official Mutawalli — Though the word official Mutwalli’ has been used in singular’ yet this expression includes its plural also under the General Clauses Act — So instead of one person appointed as the official Mutawalli a committee for five persons has been so appointed—Against an order under section 44 neither an appeal nor any revision lies — But appeal and revision shall lie if stigma is attached to the aggrieved party by such order — The order has not been challenged as arbitrary or capricious — This being an innocous order for the benefit of Wakf Estate no interference is called for. Golam Ather Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs and others, 5BLD (AD)7 |
Golam Ather Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs and others | 5 BLD (AD) 7 |
Sections 32 and 33 |
Exclusion of time in computing time of limitation to file a case — Whether exclusion prescribed under section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable in a case of special law — If a person in good faith prosecutes his legal proceedings in a wrong forum he should be entitled to exclude this period in computing the period of limitation under a special law, such as the Waqf Ordinance in the instant case In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent started her proceeding in good faith and consequently she is not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the limitation Act. Syed Ainir Hossain Vs. Mrs. Nadera Rahman, 5BLD(AD)317 |
Syed Ainir Hossain Vs. Mrs. Nadera Rahman | 5 BLD (AD) 317 |
Section 32(2) |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article—102(2)
|
Tafizul Huq Sarker Vs Bangladesh and others | 18 BLD (AD) 269 |
Sections 32(2) and 43 |
Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Wakf Ordinance mandates that the
removed Mutwalli is to hand over charge and without complying with such
requirement of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32, no appeal can
be entertained by the court against the order of removal.
|
Maulvi Afsar Uddin Haider and another Vs A.M. Mahiuddin & ors. | 19 BLD (AD) 302 |
Section 32, (1) (4) |
The remedy of appeal provided in subsection (2) of section 32 of the Ordinance was not an equally efficacious remedy since the appellant would have to vacate his office of Mutawalli as a condition precedent to such appeal. Tafiul Huq Sarker vs Bangladesh (Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J)(Civil) 2 ADC 254 |
Tafiul Huq Sarker vs Bangladesh | 2 ADC 254 |
Section 32(1), 44 |
Original waqf deed shall prevail–
|
Saifuddin Khan(Md.) =VS= Abdullah Md. Ehtesham | 6 LM (AD) 230 |
Section 32(4), 43 and 44 |
Appointing Joint Mutawalli along with the existing Mutawalli beyond the terms of deed of Waqf– Appellate Division has no hesitation to hold that the Administrator of Waqf has got no jurisdiction to appoint a Mutawalli in a proceeding under section 32 of the Waqfs Ordinance, in particular appointing Joint Mutawalli along with the existing Mutawalli beyond the terms of deed of Waqf. Section 32(4), 43 and 44 of the Waqfs Ordinance has empowered the Administrator of Waqfs to appoint Mutwalli in certain cases mentioned in the said sections. The appointment of Joint Mutawalli as in the present case does not fall within the ambit of the above provisions of law. Having considered the relevant provision of law coupled with the facts and circumstances of the present case this Division is of the opinion that the Administrator of Waqf has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and the High Court Division acted illegally in not interfering with the same and thus, committed serious error which is liable to be interfered. .....Ahsan Shorfun Nur =VS= The Administrator of Waqfs, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 103] ....View Full Judgment |
Ahsan Shorfun Nur =VS= The Administrator of Waqfs | 12 LM (AD) 103 |
Sections 33, 56, 57 |
Waqfs Ordinance 1962
|
Haji Mohammad Kutubul Alam =VS= Md.Gousuzzaman | 15 LM (AD) 481 |
Section 34 (5) |
Waqf administrator to make necessary amendment/change or variation of the "scheme" which also can be called "bye-laws" for better management/administrator of any waqf estate if he considers it fit and necessary. Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md. Aftabuddin & others (Abu Sayeed Ahammed J) (Civil) 1 ADC 215 |
Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md. Aftabuddin & others | 1 ADC 215 |
Section 34(5) |
The Wakf Administrator being empowered by section 34(5) of the Wakf Ordinance, 1962 amended the bye-laws for better management and administration of the wakf estate and hence his order of changing the scheme and approval of the new committee for the same is also legal and within his legal authority. Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md Aftabuddin 7 BLC (AD) 99. |
Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md Aftabuddin | 7 BLC (AD) 99 |
Section 34, Sub-Section 5 |
Waqf administrator to make necessary amendment/change or variation of the "scheme" which also can be called "bye-laws" for better management/administrator of any waqf estate if he considers it fit and necessary. Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md. Aftabuddin & others (Abu Sayeed Ahammed J) (Civil) 1 ADC 215 |
Afsar Uddin Sarker vs Md. Aftabuddin & others | 1 ADC 215 |
Section 34(5) |
Empowers legally the wakf administrator to make necessary amendment/change
or variation of the “scheme”–
|
Afsar Uddin Sarker =VS= Md. Aftabuddin & others | 5 LM (AD) 412 |
Sections 35 & 50 |
Administrator of Waqfs is authorized to decide whether a particular property is a waqf property or not and his decision can be challenged by the District Judge. Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah (1980132 DLR (AD) 39. |
Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah | 32 DLR (AD) 39 |
Sections 35 and 50 |
Any question as to title/ownership or specification of the scheduled land
can only be considered/ determined by a competent Court not in a proceeding
under section 64 of the Waqf Ordinance, which is a summary proceeding in
nature. Only question is to be decided in the said proceeding.
|
Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani-Vs.-Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury and others | 13 ALR (AD) 141 |
Sections 35(1) and 50 |
It appears that the waqf in respect of the suit land has been found to be
void and decreeing the suit declaring the title of the respondent in the
suit land and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land, there
is no illegality in the impugned judgment calling for interference.
|
Yusuf Sarder (Md) Waqf Lillah Estate vs Md Hossain Khan | 9 BLC (AD) 64 |
Section 43 |
Appeal to the District judge-
|
Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury and others. | 4 MLR (AD) 367 |
Sections 43 & 51 |
Appointment of a successor muuiwalli by the Administrator on the basis of an enquiry report by the Inspector of Waqfs—Administrator on the question of successor has to make a decision without referring the parties to civil Suit. Altaf Miah Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 108. |
Altaf Miah Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain | 35 DLR (AD) 108 |
Sections 43, 38, 51 |
Admittedly in appeals, it is not necessary for the appellant to appear on all dates of hearing of the same the responsibility lies with the filing advocate and here when the learned Advocate failed to appear the appeal was dismissed for default. So laches not on the part of the appellant but it is a laches of the Advocate for the appellant and appellant should not suffer. Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury @ Aminul Shah Chowdhury vs ors. vs Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury ors. (Mahmudul Amin Choudhury J) (Civil) 2ADC 548 |
Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury @ Aminul Shah Chowdhury vs ors. vs Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury ors. | 2 ADC 548 |
Section 43 |
The petitioner will continue to take part in the affairs of the Estate as a Joint Mutawalli in collaboration with the Chief Mutwalli after making over the charge of the Waqf Estate to the Chief Mutwalli. No illegality and or irregularity has been committed in issuing the impugned order. Mohammad Ali vs ADC (Revenue), Dhaka & others 53 DLR (AD) 27. |
Mohammad Ali vs ADC (Revenue), Dhaka & others | 53 DLR (AD) 27 |
Sections 43 and 51 |
Appointment of Mutwali—Administrator may decide the question of
succession to mutawalliship — He is not to refer the parties to civil
Court by appointing one of the parties for a specified period for
adjudication.
|
Altaf Miah Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain and another | 3 BLD (AD) 212 |
Section 43, 38, 51 |
Admittedly in appeals, it is not necessary for the appellant to appear on all dates of hearing of the same the responsibility lies with the filing advocate and here when the learned Advocate failed to appear the appeal was dismissed for default. So laches not on the part of the appellant but it is a laches of the Advocate for the appellant and appellant should not suffer. Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury @ Aminul Shah Chowdhury vs ors. vs Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury ors. (Mahmudul Amin Choudhury J) (Civil) 2 ADC 548 |
Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury @ Aminul Shah Chowdhury vs ors. vs Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury ors. | 2 ADC 548 |
Section 43 |
Appoint Mutwalli–
|
Rabiullah (Md) =VS= Md Mostafizur Rahman | 5 LM (AD) 73 |
Section 44 |
Appointment of official mutawalli by the Administrator.
|
Golam Ataher Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs | 36 DLR (AD) 203 |
Section 44 |
In order for proper management of the Waqf Estate the Administrator, under
section 44 of the Waqf Ordinance, is empowered to appoint a Mutwalli or
form a committee when the contesting parties failed to submit the list of
the committee, the formation of the committee, by the Administrator of
Waqfs is legal.
|
Abdul Jabbar Mondal (Md) vs Administrator of Waqfs | 10 BLC (AD) 118 |
Sections 47, 49 & 50 |
Mere enrolment of a property as a waqf u/s. 47 or u/s. 49 is not a decision u/s. 50. Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah (1980)32 DLR (AD) 40. |
Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah | 32 DLR (AD) 40 |
Sections 50, 64 (1) (2), 102 |
Once a waqf it is always a waqf and the nature of the property is not extinguished by lapse of time that a notice under section 64 of the Waqfs Ordinance is not controlled by any law of limitation or under Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act. Abdul Malek Sawdagar (3) vs Md. Mahbubey Alam (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J)(Civil) 2ADC 91 |
Abdul Malek Sawdagar (3) vs Md. Mahbubey Alam | 2 ADC 91 |
Section 50, 64 (1) (2), 102 |
Once a waqf it is always a waqf and the nature of the property is not extinguished by lapse of time that a notice under section 64 of the Waqfs Ordinance is not controlled by any law of limitation or under Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act. Abdul Malek Sawdagar (3) vs Md. Mahbubey Alam (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J)(Civil) 2 ADC 91 |
Abdul Malek Sawdagar (3) vs Md. Mahbubey Alam | 2 ADC 91 |
Section 51 |
A prospective Mutawalli, upon the death or removal of a Mutawalli, is required to notify the change to the Administrator. Amir Sultan Ali Hyder Vs. Md. K Alam (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 295. |
Amir Sultan Ali Hyder Vs. Md. K Alam | 29 DLR (SC) 295 |
Section 51 |
The court is required to look into the attending circumstances of each case and act to its own criteria as to the eligibility of a candidate for the Mutwalliship. Moulana Abdul Mannan VS Halma (Civil) 1 ADC 157 |
Moulana Abdul Mannan VS Halma | 1 ADC 157 |
Section 51 |
The Waqf estate is a purely Lillah waqf estate, and the appellant being the Imam of the mosque and having the support of waqif's only surviving daughter was found better suited to be appointed as Mutwalli for the management of the Waqf Estate. Moulana Abdul Mannan vs Halima Khatun 54 DLR (AD) 158. |
Moulana Abdul Mannan vs Halima Khatun | 54 DLR (AD) 158 |
Section 51 |
The Waqf estate is a purely Lillah waqf estate, and the appellant being the
Imam of the mosque and having the support of waqif's only surviving
daughter was found better suited to be appointed as Mutwalli for the
management of the Waqf Estate.
|
Moulana Abdul Mannan vs Halima Khatun | 54 DLR (AD) 158 |
Sections 52 & 53 |
Unless the auditor under section 53 of the Wakf Ordinance held that a
Mutwalli was guilty of breach of trust it would not make out a case of
breach of trust on the vague allegations as to his failure to disburse the
dues due to the beneficiaries.
|
Nazrul Islam Mollick vs Khowaj Ali Biswas and another | 4 BLC (AD) 239 |
Section 56 |
The Bangladesh Waqfs Ordinance 1962
|
Hafizuddin(Md.) =VS= Mozaffor Mridha | 5 LM (AD) 105 |
Section 56(3) |
This sub-section provides that the transfer made by Mutawalli shall be declared void. For the word `Mutawalli', the words, "heirs of waqif' cannot be read in sub-section (3) of section 56 of the Waqfs Ordinance. If the transfer is made by Mutawalli such transfer shall be declared void and any transfer made by the heirs of waqif shall be void ab initio and is not required to be declared void by filing suit as is required for the transfer made by Mutawalli. It has already been stated above that there is no scope for reading the words, "heirs of the waqif' for the word "Mutawalli" as mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 56 of the Waqfs Ordinance. The transferees of the heirs of waqif shall be deemed to be trespassers if they are found in possession of the waqf property. Sub-section (3) of section 56 of the Ordinance is not applicable to the transferees from the heirs of the waqif. The High Court Division was wrong in holding that the suit having not been filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge or from the date of such transfer, as the case may be, was barred and contrary to the provision of sub-section (3) of section 56 of the Ordinance. .....DC, Gaibandha =VS= Shafinaz Choudhury(Mst.), (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 210] ....View Full Judgment |
DC, Gaibandha =VS= Shafinaz Choudhury(Mst.) | 3 LM (AD) 210 |
Sections 56, 57 |
The Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
|
Idris Molla (Md) =VS= Administrator of Waqf Bangladesh | 12 LM (AD) 163 |
Sections 56(1), 57 |
Transfer any part of waqf property for the improvement and benefit of the waqf– The power conferred upon the Administrator of Waqfs to accord sanction to a mutawalli of a waqf to transfer any immovable property of a waqf by way of sale, gift, mortgage or exchange or by way of lease for a term exceeding five years or permanent (as in the instant case) by section 56(1) of the Ordinance must be subject to fulfillment of the requirement of section 57 thereof. The section has stipulated 3(three) obligations to be discharged by the Administrator of Waqfs before according sanction to transfer any immovable property of waqf, these are: (a) to make enquiry by himself for the transfer prayed for, (b) to give notice to such persons in such manner as the Administrator thinks fit and (c) hearing them (that is the persons so notified), if they desire to be heard. The appeal and the leave petition are dismissed. But Appellate Division makes no order as to costs. ...Kalim Ullah(Md.) =VS= Moulana Fariduddin Ahmed, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 489] ....View Full Judgment |
Kalim Ullah(Md.) =VS= Moulana Fariduddin Ahmed | 11 LM (AD) 489 |
Section 57 r/w section 56, 56(3) |
Transfer the Waqfs Land–
|
Aminul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Abdul Sukkur Sarker | 7 LM (AD) 34 |
Section 57 |
The Administrator of Waqf having had found that defendant No. 2 obtained sanction for transfer of the property of the Waqf without genuine intention to build mosque and that in view of the conduct of the defendant No. 2 Administrator of Waqf being convinced that sanction for transfer of the Waqf property was obtained from him in a deceitful manner and consequently the Administrator of Waqf did not in canceling the order according sanction to the mutawalli to sell the Waqf property. Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain & Anr Vs. Md. Mojibur Rahman and Ors. 12 BLT (AD)85 |
Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain & Anr Vs. Md. Mojibur Rahman and Ors. | 12 BLT (AD) 85 |
Section 57 |
Since the order granting sanction to the mutawalli for the transfer of the waqf property was not made in accordance with the provision of the Waqf Ordinance such order is not an order in the eye of law and the purchaser did not aquire any title in the property of the waqf. Shahadat Hossain (Md) vs Hafizuddin Ahmed and others 10 BLC (AD) 88. |
Shahadat Hossain (Md) vs Hafizuddin Ahmed and others | 10 BLC (AD) 88 |
Section 57 |
The Administrator of Waqf having had found that defendant No. 2 obtained
sanction for transfer of the property of the Waqf without genuine intention
to build mosque and that in view of the conduct of the defendant No. 2
Administrator of Waqf being convinced that sanction for transfer of the
Waqf property was obtained from him in a deceitful manner and consequently
the Administrator of Waqf did not in canceling the order according sanction
to the mutawalli to sell the Waqf property.
|
Dr. Md. Shahadat Hossain & Anr Vs. Md. Mojibur Rahman and Ors. | 12 BLT (AD) 85 |
Section-62(1) |
read with Government and Local Authority Lands and Buildings Recovery of
Possession Ordinance, 1970 (Ordinance No. 24 of 1970)
|
Md. Yousuf & Ors Vs. Administrator of Waqf & Ors. | 15 BLT (AD) 52 |
Section 64 |
Section 64 does not give an aggrieved person a remedy before eviction. M. Shahidullah Vs. Abdus Sobhan Talukder & Ors. 5 BLT (AD)-83. |
M. Shahidullah Vs. Abdus Sobhan Talukder & Ors. | 5 BLT (AD) 83 |
Section 64(1) |
Since the appellants are neither strangers nor trespassers as regard the waqf property, rather being the tenants of the Waqf Estate and the said tenancy having not been terminated the order of the Administrator of Waqfs for eviction of the appellants as per provision of section 64(1) of the Ordinance cannot be considered as legal, rather the said order is a misconceived one. Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others 10 BLC (AD) 171. |
Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others | 10 BLC (AD) 171 |
Section 64(1) |
The waqf property certainly not being the land of the Government or the construction standing in such property being not of the category of the structure as contemplated by the provision of the Ordinance No. XXIV of 1970 and moreover, the Waqf Estate not being a local authority initiation of the Miscellaneous Case under the provision of the Ordinance No. XXIV of 1970 by the Deputy Commissioner and making order of eviction of the appellants were not legal. Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others 10 BLC (AD) 171. |
Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others | 10 BLC (AD) 171 |
Section 64(1) |
Section 64(1) of the Ordinance has never been intended to deal with the monthly ejectable tenants of the Waqf Estate. Suffice it to say the provision of section 64(1) of the Waqf Ordinance is applicable in respect of the persons as mentioned in the said section in the background of the facts and situations as have been stipulated therein and not in respect of the monthly ejectable tenant of the Waqf Estate. As such, the order of the Waqf Administrator passed under section 64(1) of the Ordinance for eviction of the appellants, who are the monthly ejectable tenants of the Waqf Estate, was not a legally well conceived one. Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others 10 BLC (AD) 171. |
Yousuf (Md) & others vs Administrator of Waqfs Government of Bangladesh, and others | 10 BLC (AD) 171 |
Section 64 |
The remedy of an appeal to the District Judge under section 64 (2) of the Waqfs Ordinance is available to an aggrieved person only after his eviction by the Deputy Commissioner concerned has taken place. Shahidullah (Md) vs Abdus Sobhan Talukder 50 DLR (AD) 146. |
Shahidullah (Md) vs Abdus Sobhan Talukder | 50 DLR (AD) 146 |
Section 64 |
Waqfs Administrator but he has failed to discharge his statutory power as required by section 64 of the Ordinance. Such indifference of the Deputy Commissioner in carrying out the order of the Administrator of Waqfs is deplorable. .....DC, Gaibandha =VS= Shafinaz Choudhury(Mst.), (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 210] ....View Full Judgment |
DC, Gaibandha =VS= Shafinaz Choudhury(Mst.) | 3 LM (AD) 210 |
Section 64 |
The Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
|
Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani =VS= Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury | 5 LM (AD) 85 |
Section 102 |
The deed shows that the wafk has earmarked the income amounting to Rs. 19,200/- to be spent for maintenance of his descendants. The Mutawalli has no discretion but to carry Out the direction of the wakif in terms of the wakf deed. This amount is devoted to the purposes of the wakf al-alaulad and according to the terms of the deed ‘applied’ to said purpose. Director of Taxation Vs. Mehdi Ali Khan Panni (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 140. |
Director of Taxation Vs. Mehdi Ali Khan Panni | 32 DLR (AD) 140 |
Section 102 |
Provisions in the Waqf Ordinance to be followed excluding those of CP
Code.
|
Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah | 32 DLR (AD) 140 |