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

Basic Principles of Waqf–
According to Imam Abu Hanifa the meaning of waqf is the detention of a specific thing in the ownership of waqf and the devoting of its profit or products “in charity of poors or other good objects”. Imam Abu Yusuf said, “Waqf signifies the extinction of the waqif’s ownership in the thing dedicated and detention of all the thing in the implied ownership of the Almighty Allah, in such a manner that its profits may revert to or be applied ‘for the benefit of Mankind.’ Three basic principles governed the waqf: the trust was required to be irrevocable, perpetual, and inalienable. Once property was declared waqf by its owner, the trust thereby created was irrevocable. It means (i) inalienable lands used for charitable purposes and (ii) pious endowments. .....Hafizuddin(Md.) =VS= Mozaffor Mridha, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 105] ....View Full Judgment

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

Removal of Motwalli- Appointment of joint Motwalli— Power of Wakf Administrator—
The Wakf Administrator under section 32 has the power to remove a Motwalli on ground of incompetency and mismanagement. He can also appoint under section 27 more persons than one a joint Motwallies and authorise the Chief Motwalli to manage the affairs of the estate and submit report to the Administrator. Mohammad AH Vs. Administrator of Wakf, Government of Bangladesh and others. 2, MLR(1997) (AD) 395.

Maintainability of writ against dismissal of Mutwalli—
Dismissal of Mutwalli is appealable and such an appeal lies to the District Judge with the inflexible pre-condition that the charge of the office of the Mutwalli must be handed over before filing the appeal Since the provision of appeal is saddled with inflexible precondition the remedy is considered as not alternative adequate and efficacious. In that view of the matter Application under article 102 of the Constitution is maintainable notwithstanding the provision of appeal under section 32(2) of the Wakf Ordinance, 1962. Tafyul Huq Sarker Vs. Bangladesh and others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 19.

Administrator of Wakf acts as a civil court regarding removal of mutwalli. Shauket Ali Vs. Administrator of Wakfs (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 276.

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

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.
The High Court Division considering a number of decisions, held that a Mutwalli of a Waqf Estate is mere man­ager and not ostensible owner. Mosammat Parveen Sultana vs. Mosammat Sahera Khatun & another (M.M. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 4ADC 889

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.

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.

‘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

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

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article—102(2)
An alternative remedy by way of appeal under a statute will not be a bar to a writ petition under Article 102(2) of the Constitution if there is a non-relaxable pre-condition for bringing the appeal.
In the instant case the constraint of relinquishing the office of Mutawalli prior to bringing an appeal is non-relaxable and as such the High Court Division was wrong in summarily rejecting the writ petition merely because the appellant had an alternative remedy under subsection (2) of section 32 of the Ordinance. Tafizul Huq Sarker Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 269.

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.
In this case the learned Judges of the High Court Division rightly found that the appeals were filed against that order but in the memorandum the appellant mentioned section 43 in order to mislead the court. The finding on merit equally is based on consideration of materials that the order of removal was passed for mismanagement of the Wakf Estate and for misappropriation of the fund. These findings of the learned Judges of the High Court Division do not call for any interference. Maulvi Afsar Uddin Haider and another Vs A.M. Mahiuddin & ors, 19 BLD (AD) 302.

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

Original waqf deed shall prevail–
We would like to mention here is that by the appointment letter (¢e­u¡Nfœ) dated 10.03.2004, the terms of the waqf deed cannot be altered. The registered appointment letter dated 10.03.2004 is strictly meant for appointment of Abdullah Md. Ehtesham as Mutwalli and for no other purpose. In all circumstances, the original waqf deed shall prevail. In the judgment under review, this Division has not stated anywhere that by the appointment letter dated 10.03.2004, the terms of the original waqf deed have been changed or altered. In the light of the findings made before, we do not find substance in this review petition and accordingly. ...Saifuddin Khan(Md.) =VS= Abdullah Md. Ehtesham, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 230] ....View Full Judgment

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

Waqfs Ordinance 1962
Sections 33, 56, 57
Bengal Wafq Act, 1934
Section 53
The authority of the Waqf Administrator to accord permission to transfer the waqf property is not absolute. In view of the aforesaid law, facts and circumstances, the impugned transfers made by the Mutawalli even after taking permission from the Waqf Administrator are void in nature in absence of proper inquiry indicated in section 57 of the Ordinance.
It is the duty of the mutwalli to manage the waqf estate prudently and efficiently. Simultaneously, it is also the duty of the Waqf Administrator and Judiciary as well to ensure, to protect and to preserve the waqf property and to see that the Mutwalli is complying with the terms and conditions of the waqf deed as well as the law related to the waqf.
A Mutwalli has no power, without the permission of the Waqf Administrator to sell waqf property or any part thereof. Authority of giving permission of the waqf Administrator is not absolute. He must follow the provision of law, contents of waqf deed, jurisprudence build up in this regard and welfare of waqf estate. He cannot accord permission when it is apparent that such proposal for transfer may cause harm to waqf property itself, consequence of which is ultimate damage and destruction of the property and object of the waqf. The instant permission given by the Administrator may cause damage to the object of the waqf and the estate itself. Such transfers were an unholy racket involved in fraudulent sale of waqf property.
The High Court Division has committed error of law in interfering the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is settled principle that a transfer which is void ab initio is in the eye of law no transfer at all. .....Haji Mohammad Kutubul Alam =VS= Md.Gousuzzaman, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 481] ....View Full Judgment

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

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.

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

Empowers legally the wakf administrator to make necessary amendment/change or variation of the “scheme”–
We very meticulously considered the said provision of law and we are satisfied that the wakf administrator was very much within his legal ambit and jurisdiction to change/modify the scheme or byelaws as made by the wakf administrator which has been upheld by the High Court Division. .....Afsar Uddin Sarker =VS= Md. Aftabuddin & others, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 412] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.
The Appellate Division held that whether the evicted person was in illegal possession of a waqf property enrolled at the office of the Administrator under section 47(Chapter IV) of the Ordinance. Any person claiming any interest in any waqf property is required to make application to the District Judge under section 35(1) within certain time as provided in section 50 of the Ordinance. In the present case the respondents claim that they have been dispossessed from the property of their waqf estate in which they are beneficiaries. There arises a question whether the said 23 decimals of land belong to which waqf estate. Such dispute can only be resolved under section 50 read with section 35 of the Ordinance. But no such step has been taken by the present respondents. Since the respondents have raised such allegation they need to get the remedy in a competent forum not in a summary proceeding under section 64 of the Waqf Ordinance.
Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani-Vs.-Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 141-147

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.

Appeal to the District judge-
Appeal against order of appointment of Motwalli made by the Wakf Administrator lies to the District Judge under section 43 of the Wakf Ordinance. District Judge as mentioned under section 43 is not a persona designata but a court of civil jurisdiction. Provisions of Order 41 C.P.C. shfJl be applicable to the appeals under the-Wakf Ordinance, 1962. Aminul Haque Shah Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury and others. 4. MLR (1999) (AD) 367.

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.

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

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.

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.
The learned Judge of the High Court Division unsuccessfully commented that the Administrator .has arrogated to himself the function of the civil Court in determining the competency between the two claimants. The remarks are unfair. The Administrator, in discharging his functions is required to decide the question of succession. In such a case he is not required to refer the parties to the Civil Court for determination of competency to the mutwalliship—If in such a case the Administrator instead of deciding the question of succession as contemplated under section 51, passed an order under section 43 in favour of one of the two persons to act as Mutwalli for a specified period, and thereby driving the parties to the civil Court for adjudication, in that case, he would be failing in his duties as conferred under the Wakfs Ordinance, 1961.
[Minority View : Per R. Islam, 3. (S. Ahmed, J concurring)]
Altaf Miah Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain and another, 3BLD (AD)212

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

Appoint Mutwalli–
The High Court Division also failed to consider the age old legal principle that fraud vitiates everything. The High Court Division also failed to consider that in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Code, the District Judge, Nawabgonj had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 43 of the Ordinance though some of the properties Waqf Estate were situated in District-Rajshahi. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order cannot be maintained and must be set aside. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and those of the District Judge are restored. The Administrator of Waqfs is directed to appoint Mutwalli in respect of the Waqf Estate in question as expeditiously as possible, not beyond 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this judgment, keeping in view the terms of the Waqf deed and the provisions of law notifying the concerned parties and hearing them. .....Rabiullah (Md) =VS= Md Mostafizur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 73] ....View Full Judgment

Appointment of official mutawalli by the Administrator.
By section 44 of the Waqf Ordinance, the Administrator has been empowered to appoint an ‘official mutawalli’, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or i,i any other law in force or in any deed or instrument, such as waqf deed. According to the waqf-deed, the appellant is a fit person for appointment as Mutawalli, and, in fact, he was so appointed. But provisions of section 44 override all other things contained either in the waqf-deed or elsewhere in this Ordinance. The appellant was appointed mutawalli by the Administrator in terms of the waqf-deed. But in view of the circumstances, as stated, the Administrator modified his earlier order appointing the appellant as mutawalli and proceeded to appoint a committee of five persons to act as Mutawalli under section 44. Golam Ataher Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs (1984) 36 DLR (AD) 203.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The Bangladesh Waqfs Ordinance 1962
Section 56 read with
The Bengal Waqf Act, 1934
Sections 53 & 70(1)(4)
The property, in question, is waqf property and the same was not transferred by its actual owner, by the impugned deeds, title of the disputed waqf property had not been vested to the recipients of those deeds and those are mere papers transaction. .....Hafizuddin(Md.) =VS= Mozaffor Mridha, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 105] ....View Full Judgment

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

The Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
Sections 56, 57
The General Clauses Act
Section 21
There was suppression of material facts in obtaining the permission for sale and, as such, fraud was practised upon the Administrator of Waqf that fraud vitiates everything– Since the Administrator of Waqf has granted permission under certain terms and conditions he is competent to withdraw/ rescind/cancel his permission on the ground that the same had been accorded under misrepresentation of facts or the terms and conditions had not been complied with. The appellant admitted that the Waqf deed of the impugned Waqf Estate did not authorize the Mutawalli to sell waqf land. While obtaining permission, the Mutawalli had suppressed such fact before the Administrator of Waqf and therefore, the Administrator of Waqf lawfully cancelled the earlier permission in exercise of his power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act on the ground that vital facts had not been brought to his notice. Therefore, it appears that there was suppression of material facts in obtaining the permission for sale and, as such, fraud was practised upon the Administrator of Waqf. It is to be mentioned here that fraud vitiates everything. .....Idris Molla (Md) =VS= Administrator of Waqf Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 163] ....View Full Judgment

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

Transfer the Waqfs Land–
The finding of the Administrator of Waqfs to the effect that the predecessor of the appellant-plaintiff in the suit had consented to the transfer of the property in question is a finding of fact which could have been agitated by the plaintiff in a properly constituted challenge before the concerned District Judge. But he did not do so. Hence, the finding that the transfer was valid cannot be challenged by him since there is a bar under section 102 of the Ordinance. …Aminul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Abdul Sukkur Sarker, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 34] ....View Full Judgment

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

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.

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

read with Government and Local Authority Lands and Buildings Recovery of Possession Ordinance, 1970 (Ordinance No. 24 of 1970)
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 contemplates by the provision of the Ordinance No.24 of 1970 and moreover the Waqf Estates not being a local authority initiation of the Miscellaneous case under the provision of the Ordinance No.24 of 1970 by the Deputy Commissioner and the making order of eviction of the appellants were not legal.
Md. Yousuf & Ors Vs. Administrator of Waqf & Ors. 15 BLT (AD) 52

Section 64 does not give an aggrieved person a remedy before eviction. M. Shahidullah Vs. Abdus Sobhan Talukder & Ors. 5 BLT (AD)-83.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The Waqfs Ordinance, 1962
Section 64 r/w
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115
It has the power to interfere with the judgment only when there appears error of law apparent on the face of the record occasioning failure of justice. It has already been discussed earlier that under a proceeding arising out of section 64 of the Waqf Ordinance there is no scope to decide title or any dispute regarding the property. Only thing is to be looked into in such proceeding is whether the property belongs to a Waqf Estate and whether the occupier of it is an illegal occupier. The Administrator as well as the Deputy Commissioner in the present case after holding separate inquiries found the allegation of illegal occupation of 23 decimals of land by the present respondents, correct/proved and hence evicted the illegal occupants (present respondents No. 1 to 3) from the said property of the Waqf Estate. We are of the view that the High Court Division, while making the Rule absolute, failed to consider all these aspects and rather misdirected itself and as such came to an erroneous finding and conclusion which is required to be interfered with by this Division. Accordingly we find merit in this appeal. .....Alhaj Dr. Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani =VS= Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 85] ....View Full Judgment

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.

Provisions in the Waqf Ordinance to be followed excluding those of CP Code.
The Waqf Ordinance being a special statute providing a special procedure to be followed the cognizance of the Civil Court is to that extent excluded. The exclusion is again enacted in section 102 of the Ordinance. Syed Masud Ali Vs. Md. Asmatullah (1980)32 DLR (AD) 140.