WAQF ORDINANCE, 1961 & 1962


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

The Waqf Ordinance, 1962

General principles regarding the administration and management of the waqf under the Muslim Personal Law

Under the Muslim personal law, a Mohammedan is entitled to dispose of his property, movable of immovable by of a waqf. Waqf means and includes any permanent dedication by a person professing the Muslim faith of any property for any purpose recognized by Islam as religious, pious or charitable. It is no doubt a trust. After the creation of the waqf. The title of such property vests absolutely in Allah or in the charities created in His name. A mutawalli or mutawallis are appointed to carry out the waqf. The position of a mutawalli is not that an ostensible owner but a mere manager. He is obliged to do only that
what he was instructed for in the waqf-deed by way of administration and management of the waqf. No action of such mutawalli beyond the authority as given in the waqf-deed or which are intended to result in the waste or loss of the waqf property will be valid or being the waqf.

Hafizuddin Ahmed Vs. M.Aslam Miah & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-399

Whether the land which was not made waqf by the waqf cannot be enlisted as waqf by anybody after him

The Land was shown to be recorded as waqf in RS record, SA record and Bangladesh record, such records or the actions of the beneficiaries would have no legal effect. Law is very clear; when the waqf did not endow the land as waqf nobody after him can make it waqf in his name. No beneficiary is entitled to superimpose his intention upon that of the waqf. All such records and acts of the beneficiaries shall, therefore, stand to be without jurisdiction and nullity.

Md. Yusuf chowdhury Vs. Administrator of waqf & Ors 13BLT(HCD)82


While proceeding for removal of the Mutwalli Pending there is no provision to appoint a 3rd party to manage the waqf or to take ad-interim action till disposal of the proceeding.

Abdul Khaleque Shah Vs. Administrator of Waqf & Ors. 5BLT (HCD)-149

Section-33, 56, 57

Principle regarding transfer-The power of the Administrator under Section 33 to transfer a part of the waqf property is made limited and conditional. First, he must be satisfied that such transfer is necessary for improvement and benefit of the waqf. Then, he will have to obtain a sanction of the Government. But Section 56 is not generally intended to empower a mutawalli to transfer any part of the waqf property by way of sale, mortgage or exchange, or by lease for more than five years. That is, he can only lease out for a period of five years only. In case of an absolute transfer, no such transfer could he valid without prior sanction of the Administrator. Again the proviso warns that even sanction cannot validate a transfer, which is in contravention of a law or otherwise invalid. So, the sanction is not sacrosanct. Even a transfer with sanction may not be valid either for contravention of the law or when the sanction itself was not valid. Moreover, we could not find any reason for not to read the
conditions or limitations as provided in Section 33 that before granting sanction the Administrator must be satisfied that such transfer was necessary for the improvement and benefit of the waqf in Section 33 for a transfer by a mutawalli in Section 56 and/or granting sanction by the Administrator in Section 57. Underlining implied limitation must not also be forgotten that the law was never interred to validate a transfer even with sanction, which ultimately results in injury, waste or loss of the waqf.

Hafizuddin Ahmed Vs. M. Aslam Miah & Ors 10 BLT (HCD)-399

Section-35 (3)

The decision of the appellate Court is made appealable under section 35(3) of the Waqf Ordinance.

Md. Yusuf Chowdhury Vs. Administrator of waqf & Ors J3BLT(HCD)82

Section-62(1) 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.