Waqfs Ordinance, 1962

 

Waqfs
Ordinance [I of 1962]


Section 2(10)—

In the
absence of enrolment of a property as Waqf the Administrator cannot treat the
same as “waqf by user.”

In the
instant case neither the Mutwalli of the mosque nor persons interested in the
mosque filed any application under section 47(2) for enrollment of the mosque
as waqf. For want of enrolment of the mosque as waqf under section 47(1) of the
Ordinance neither the respondent No. 1 nor the respondent No. 2 had any
sanction of law to make the impugned orders.

Surat Ali vs
Administrator of Waqfs 45 DLR 218.

 

Sections 27 & 32—

There is no
power given to the Waqf Administrator either under section 27 or 32 of the
Ordinance empowering him to cancel a regular appointment of a mutwalli.

Abdul Hoque
(Md) vs Md Abdul Gani alias A Goni 52 DLR 295.

 

Section 32—

There is no
provision in the Ordinance authorising the Administrator of Waqfs to appoint a
3rd party to manage the Waqf Estate during pendency of the proceedings for
removal of the Mutwalli.

Abdul
Khaleque Shah vs Administrator of Waqfs and others 49 DLR 427.

 

Section 32—

There was no
scope of application of the provision of section 32(1) ofthe Waqf Ordinance for
removal of the petitioner from the office of mutawalli specially when no
allegation was brought against him.

Serajuddin
Shah (Md) vs Secretary. Ministry of Religious Affairs and others 51 DLR 479.

 

Section 32—

An
application for removal of a Mutwalli may be filed by any person being
interested in the Waqf property. There is no bar that once an application for
removal of the Mutawalli is rejected, a subsequent application cannot be filed.
The principle of res judicata has no manner of applkation under the Ordinance.

Azizul Hoq
(Md) vs Administrator of Waqf, Government of Bangladesh 54 DLR 561.

 

Sections 32 & 38—

Removal of
mutwalli—­his right to be heard—by denying the mutwalli his right to be heard
the Administrator of Waqf has committed a breach of the mandatory provision of
the Ordinance—The function of the Adminis­trator in carrying out the enquiry is
that of a civil Court which only means that he is to act judicially.

Tabarak Ali
Sikder vs Administrator of Waqfs 45 DLR 70.

 

Section 32(2)—

Suit
challenging removal of mutawalli—It is now well settled that no suit can be
maintained in the Civil Court challenging an order passed by the Administrator
removing a Mutawalli under section 32(2) of the Ordinance. The instant suit for
declaration that the order of the Administrator removing the petitioner from
Mutawalliship is illegal and not maintainable.

Md Yusaf vs
Bangladesh 42 DLR 521.

 

Sections 33, 56, 57—

The power of
the Administrator to transfer a part of the waqf property is made limited and
conditional. The underlining implied limitation must not be forgotten that the
law was never intended to validate a transfer even with sanction, which
ultimately results in injury, waste or loss of the waqf.

Hafizuddin
Ahmed vs M Aslam Miah and others 55 DLR 95.

 

Section 34—

Merely
because the respondent No.2 is still in service, the application under section
34 of the IRO cannot be maintained. In addition, the Labour Court has to come
to a finding that has some existing right guaranteed to him by or under any law
or any award or settlement.

Bangladesh
Biman Airlines Corpora­tion vs Chairman, Second Labour Court and others 52 DLR
191.

 

Sections 34, 37 & 39—

Removal of
mutwalli —Section 37 gives the Administrator of Waqf an option either to remove
a mutwalli or to take over the waqf estate for its management and control or to
take any other action as he deems fit. Section 37 is however to be read with
sections 34 and 39. In the facts of this case the Waqf Administrator should not
have appointed a committee for management of the waqf estate in place of the
mutwalli.

Tobarak Ali
Sikder vs. Administrator of Waqfs. 45 DLR 70.

 

Section 35—

District
Judge as appearing in sections 50, 35 and 43 of the Waqf Ordinance means a
Court and not a persona designata. As such, it is not District Judge alone but
it includes the Additional District Judge.

AKM Abdullah
Harun vs Additional District Judge and others 56 DLR 654.

 

Sections 35(1) and 50—

When a
petition is presented before the District Judge challenging the decision of the
Waqf Administrator that the property is Waqf Property, the former does not
function as a Court of appeal—in dealing with such a petition he cannot refuse
to take oral or documentary evidence.

Yar Ali Khan
vs Moqbul Ahmed 45 DLR 147

 

Section 35(3)—

Petition
under section 35(1) of the Waqfs Ordinance seeking a further decision from the
District Judge as to whether the Administrator of Waqfs was correct in
declaring the character of the land was fully competent and again as against
the decision of the former the Second Miscellaneous Appeal before the High
Court Division under section 35(3) of the Ordinance is also competent.

Afajuddin
Mollah vs Mobarak Ali Munshi 46 DLR 587.

 

Section 38—

This section
empowers the Administrator of Waqfs and the District Judge to examine witness
and call for production of documents and issuance of process as provided in the
case of a civil Court under the CPC.

Afazuddin
Mollah vs Mobarak Ali Munshi 46 DLR 587.

 

Sections 38 & 32—

Removal of
mutwalli­his right to be heard—by denying the mutwalli his right to be heard
the Administrator of Waqf has committed a breach of the mandatory provision of
the Ordinance—The function of the Adminis­trator in carrying out the enquiry is
that of a civil Court which only means that he is to act judicially.

Tobarak Ali
Sikder vs Administrator of Waqfs 45 DLR 70.

 

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.

 

Section 43—

The appeal
as contemplated in section 43 could be heard and disposed of by an Additional
District Judge and no illegality has been committed in the case because the
same has been so disposed of by the Additional District Judge.

AKM Abdullah
Harun vs Additional District Judge 56 DLR 654.

 

Section 44—

Petitioner
was substituted as mutwalli in place of his father who was appointed ad-interim
mutwalli. By substitution petitioner cannot claim to have better status than
that of his father—he was liable to be relieved any moment by the
Administrator.

Serajuddin
Shah (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and others 51 DLR 479.

 

Section 44—

The
provision of this section overrides all the other provisions of the
Ordinance—appointment of the official mutwalli by relieving the petitioner of
the office of ad­-interim mutwalli is not without lawful authority.

Serajuddin
Shah (Md) vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and others 51 DLR 479.

 

Section 50—

Whether a
plaintiff has the option to file a civil suit for declaration that a particular
property is waqf property in view of the provisions of section 50 of the
Ordinance.

SSM Osman
Ghani vs Bangladesh 39 DLR 451.

 

Section 50—

Plaintiff-petitioner
contends that the remedy provided in section 50 is cumulative, alternative or
parallel. Civil Court’s jurisdiction, he further contends, has not been ousted
by the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962.

SSM Osman
Ghani vs Bangladesh 39 DLR 451.

 

Section 50—

The
jurisdiction of the Administrator and the District Judge or any civil Court are
not parallel, alternative or cumulative and that power under section 50 of the
Waqfs Ordinance provides for art adequate and sufficient relief in the
proceeding . to decide whether the particular property is Waqf property or not.

Afazuddin
Mollah vs Mobarak Ali Munshi 46 DLR 587.

 

Section 50—

If the
dispute as to the waqf character of the property is raised either before or at
the time of enrolment or after the enrolment the jurisdiction to decide the
waqf character is with Waqf Administrator.

Mokbul Ahmed
vs. Shamsul Rashid and others 49 DLR 18.

 

Sections 50 and 64(1)—

The
Administrator of Waqfs having powers to determine the question as to nature of
waqf property to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Court should not
have exercised power casually taking greater care and caution in holding that
the petitioner is a trespasser.

Abdur Rashid
Lahi vs Mohd Yunus Gazi 40 DLR 428.

 

Sections 50 & 102—

Suii against
Administrator’s decision holding the disputed property to be Waqf
property—After hearing the parties the Administrator arrived at the finding
that the petitioner was treating the disputed property as personal secular
property though the same was waqf property and removed him from the office of
Mutawalli of the Waqf Estate. The submission that the order holding the
disputed property to be waqf property in a proceeding under section 32(2)
cannot be regarded as an order under section 50 can hardly be accepted. The
suit for a declaration that the finding and decision of the Administrator in
this regard is not maintainable.

Md Yusaf vs
Bangladesh 42 DLR 521.

 

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.

 

Section 56(1)—

The court of
appeal fell in error of law in holding that the lease for a term exceeding 5
years even with sanction of the Administrator cannot be valid.

Moulana
Fariduddin Ahmed and another vs Md Kolim­ullah and others 55 DLR 49;

 

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.

 

Section 64(2)—

There is no
scope for any appeal under section 64(2) of the Ordinance against an order of
rejection of prayer for eviction of person passed by the Administrator of
Waqfs.

Afazuddin
Mollah vs Mobarak Ali Munshi 46 DLR 587.

 

Section 102—

The express
ouster is attracted only after the Administrator has given a decision or order.

Under
section 102 of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 no decision or order of the
Administrator shall be questioned in any suit or other proceeding in any Court,
except as otherwise expressly provided in the said Ordinance. The express
ouster is attracted only after the Administrator has given a decision or order.
In the entire Ordinance we do not find any express ouster forbidding the Civil
Courts to entertain any suit as to the Waqf character of suit—property. It is
only when the Administrator of Waqfs gives a decision or order in relation to
the same that the bar of section 102 is attracted.

In the
present case, the plaintiff petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of the
Administrator under section 50 at all. The bar of section 102 is not expressly
attracted to his case.

SSM Osman
Ghani vs Bangladesh 39 DLR 451.

 

Section 102—

In view of
the case—law reported in 41 DLR 77, the general remedy of the suit under
section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by section 102 of the Waqfs
Ordinance and clause ( d) of rule 11 of Order VII, CPC appears to be applicable
in the matter.

Shah Newaz
(Md) vs Shah Wali and another 54 DLR 375.

 

Waqfs Ordinance, 1962

 

Waqf Ordinance 1962 (I Of 1962)


Section—32

An
application for removal of a Mutwalli may be filed by any person being
interested in the Waqf property. There is no bar in the Ordinance that once an
application for removal of the Mutwalli is rejected, a subsequent application
under section 32(2) cannot be filed. Therefore, the principle of res judicata
has no manner of application under section 32 of the Ordinance.

Md. Azizul
Hoq v. The Administrator of Waqf, Government of Bangladesh and others, 22 BLD HCD)
223.

Section—32(2)



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.

Ref:
17 DLR (1965) 46; 19 DLR (1967) 592; 42 DLR (AD)167; 16 BLD (AD) 83; 46DLR(AD)
191; 1 5DLR(SC) 181—Cited.

 

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.

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.

 

Section—38

It
provides that for the purpose of an enquiry under the Ordinance, the Wakf
Administrator shall have the power to summon and enforce the attendance of the
witnesses, including the interested parties, to examine them, to compel the
production of necessary documents and to issue commissions for examination of
witnesses in the same manner as is available to a Civil Court under the Code of
Civil Procedure.

In
hearing an appeal from the order of the Wakf Administrator, the District Judge
is required to decide the dispute regarding the right to the office of the
Mutwalli claimed by the contending parties on hearing them and after taking
necessary evidence. The District Judge acted illegally in passing the impugned
judgment and order without examining any witness and the relevant documents in
connection with the disputes.

Md.
Afazuddin Mollah and others Vs. Mobarak Au Munshi and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 242.

 

Sections—35
and 50

Section
50 empowers the Wakf Administrator to determine the question as to whether a
particular property is wakf property or not. Any person aggrieved by the
decision or order of the Administrator may submit a petition to the District
Judge under Section 35(1) of the Ordinance within three months from the date of
such decision or order. Section 50 of the Ordinance provides an adequate and
sufficient relief in a proceeding to determine the character of the wakf
property. The jurisdiction of the Administrator and the District Judge or any
Civil Court are not parallel, alternative or cumulative.



Md.
Afazuddin Mollah and others Vs. Mobarak Au Munshi and others, 14 BLD (HCD)242

 

Section—50

Section
50 of the Ordinance provides that when there is a dispute as to the Wakf
character of a property raised whether before or after the enrolment of the
Wakfs, such dispute must be raised before the Administrator of Wakfs. The Wakfs
Ordinance being special statute providing special procedures. it must be availed,
of first and the jurisdiction of the civil Court in such cases is expressly
barred. It is thus found that the entire proceeding before the learned
Assistant Judge is a coram non-judice as he had no jurisdiction to entertain
the suit.

Chairman,
Santosh Islami University Vs. Nil Mahmud and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 542.

 

Section—64(1)
(2)

Against
an order of eviction passed under Section 64(1) of the Wakf Ordinance, an
appeal lies under Section 64(2) of the Ordinance before the District Judge
whose decision shall be final but it made no provision for appeal in case of
rejection of an application under Section 64 of the Ordinance.

Md.
Afazuddin Mollah and others Vs. Mobarak Ali Munshi and others, 14 BLD (HCD)242

Ref:
31 DLR(AD) 249; 40 DLR 428; 18 DLR 52; 39DLR 451—Cited

 

Section—102

It
provides that no decision or order of the Administrator shall be questioned in
any suit or proceeding in any Court except as otherwise expressly provided in
the Wakf Ordinance. This ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is attracted
only after the Administrator has given a decision or order as to the character
of the disputed property.

When
the jurisdiction of the Wakf Administrator under Section 50 of the Ordinance is
not invoked, power of Section 102 is not attracted.

Md. Afazuddin
Mollah and others Vs. Mobarak Au Munshi and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 242.

 

WAQFS ORDINANCE, 1962


WAQFS ORDINANCE, 1962

(I of 1962)

 

Sections — 2(6) and 43

Appointment of minor
mutwalli and guardian of minor Mutwalli
— Guardian of the minor Mutwalli
can be appointed to act as Mutwalli till the minor attains majority.

It must be held that during the mimrlty of. a Mutwalli the
guardian of the minor could be appointed to act as Mutwalli by the
Administrator of Waqfs till the minor attains majority.

Wasef Ali Chowdhnry and others Vs. Sekandar Rahman & ors., 4 BLD
(HCD) 104.

 

Section — 32(2)

Waqf — Appeal of
Mutuawalli against order of his removal is not incompetent on ground of his
failure to handover charge prior to filing of appeal, if the failure is due to
circumstances beyond his control or intervention of a Court of law—The appeal
will simply not be heard until he cloud is removed and the appellant is in a
position to hand over charge.

Abul Hashem alias Abul Hashem Talukder Vs. Administrator of Waqfs and
others, 1BLD (HCD) 63

 

Sections —32 and 43

Wakf Administrator
— Whether he is a Court subordinate to the civil Court — It cannot be said that
just because the District Judge exercises appellate power over the
Administrator under sections 32 and 43 of the Ordinance, the Administrator is a
Court subordinate to the civil Court in respect of all other orders passed by
him under the Ordinance.

Golam Ather Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs and others, 4BLD (HCD)
130

 

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

 

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

Ref: 53 C.W.N. 159; A.I.R. 1929 Cal 325; I.L.R. All XXXIV
(1912)496—Cited.

 

Sections — 32, 43 and
47

Appointment of
Mutawalli
—Whether Administrator of Wakfs can appoint Mutawalli at the time
of enrolment of Wakf — The Administrator can appoint a Mutawalli when another
Mutawalli was removed or when there is no Mutawalli of a Wakf Estate or there
is impediment in appointing a Mutawalli in terms of the Wakf deed or when the
successor of the Mutwalli is a minor, insane or insolvent —-The Administrator
has no jurisdiction to appoint Mutawalli under section 47 of the Wakf Ordinance
while enrolling the Wakf.

Basiruddin Ahmed Vs. Abdur Rahman, 6BLD (HCD) 128

 

Sections — 32, 43 and
51

Appointment and removal
of the Mutawalli
—Whether Administrator after removal of a Mutawalli and
appointment of another person in his place can review the said order and
appoint another person as Mutawalli — When appointment of a Mutawalli is made
under section 32(4) he cannot be removed until a regular appointment is made in
a properly constituted suit in pursuance of the provisions of Muslim Personal
Law — The Administrator acted without jurisdiction by arrogating to himself the
power of the civil Court by terminating the appointment of the petitioner and
substituting respondent No. 2 in her place as Mutawalli.

Latifunnessa Bibi Vs. The Administrator of Wakfs, Bangladesh and
others, 7BLD (HCD) 2I7

 

Section — 32

Erroneous finding—Where
the parties were in litigation for a long time, the finding of the learned
Additional District Judge to the effect that the provision of section 32 of the
Waqf Ordinance has been violated has no basis at all in as much as the learned
Additional District Judge has totally misconstrued the judgment of the Appellate
Division as well as the materials on record and thereby came to an erroneous
finding to that effect that the provision of section 32 of the Waqf Ordinance
has been violated in the instant case.

Amir Sultan Au Hyder Vs. Khorshed Alam alias Shah Alam and another,
12BLD (HCD)317

 

Sections —35 and 50

Condonation of delay in
filing appeal
— Whether delay in filing appeal within the time prescribed
by a special law can be condoned by the Court — Delay in filing an appeal
against the order of Administrator of Wakf cannot be condoned by the Court as
section 5 of the Limitat4on Act is not applicable in view of section 29 of the
Limitation Act.

Serajuddin and others Vs. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman and another, 6BLD(HCD)258

Ref. A.I.R. 1949 (Lah) 299; A.l.R. F980 (Kerala) 82; AIR. 1976
(SC)105; A.I.R.l978 (Madhya Prodesh) 245 — Cited.

 

Sections — 35, 50 and
102

Jurisdiction—Jurisdiction
of the civil Court if ousted impliedly when the Administrator of Wakfs has been
vested with the power to adjudicate whether a prbperty is Wakf
property?—Whether civil Court can decide whether a property is wakf property or
not when such dispute was not raised before the Administrator of Wakfs—There is
no express ouster of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain any suit to
decide wakf character of a suit property. It is only when the Administrator of
Wakfs gives a decision or order in relation to a property that Court’s
jurisdictioir is expressly ousted—Wakf Ordinance provides for an adequate,
sufficient and comprehensive forum and procedure to decide the question as to
whether a particular property is Wakf property or not — It is fit and proper
that the Administrator should be seized with the determination of the limited
questionof wakf character of the property and the aggrieved party may go to the
District Judge and then to the High Court Division for redress — So there is an
implied bar of ciyil Courts to decide such question.

Syed Shah Mohaminad Ojman Ghani Vs. Bangladesh and others, 8BLD(HCD)26

Réf: 1859 6 C.B.N.S. 336(356): 141 E:R. 486 (1897)AC 615(622)
ILR3I Bom604 (609) AIR 1934 All 795 AIR 1937 All 365: A.I.R.1949 Lahore 131
(FB); (1959) All. E.R. (3) 1; (1957) 1 All.E.R. 825: (1908) 77 L J Ch 924
(1832) 8 .8mg 394 32 DLR (AD) 39 — Cited.

 

Section — 43

Appointment of
Mutawalli
—The Administrator can make an appointment for a specied period
leaving the parties for adjudi cation of their disputes by a civil
Court—Administrator cannot arrogate to himself function of the civil Court
which is not authorised by law.

In the instant case respondents Anwar Hossain, informed the
Administrator that after the death of. his father Moyna Mia he has assumed the
office of Mutawalliship. When this claim was challenged by Altaf Mia, a cousin
of Anwar Hossain, it was the duty of the Administrator to make an appointment
in terms of section 43 for a specified period thereby leaving the parties for
adjudication of the dispute by a civil Court. Instead, he made au enquiry and
attempted to evaluate the claim of each candidate which the High Court rightly
described as arrogating to himself the functions of the civil Court. Such
action on the part of the Administrator is not authorised by law. [Majority
view : Per B.H. Chowdhury, J; Munim, C.J. and A.T.M Masud, J. concurring].

Ref: A.I.R. 1961 (SC)1095 —Cited

 

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.

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

 

Section —43

Appointment of Mutwalli—Appointment
of Mutwalli and issuance of notice to the persons interested in the Waqf —
Issuance of notices prior to the appointment of Mutwalli is not necessary.

Wasef Ali Chowdhury and
others Vs. Sekandar Rahinan and others, 4 BLD (HCD) 104

 

Section— 43

Order of Waqf
Administrator
— Question of finality — Administrator has the power to
appoint a Mutawalli in certain cases — Person aggrieved by such an appointment
may appeal to the District Judge and the decision of the District Judge shall
be final — Inspite of the case of the word ‘final’ a revision there- ‘after
lies to the High Court Division.

Golain Ather Chowdhury Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs and others, 4BLD
(HCD)130

Ref: 22 DLR 781; 34 DLR(AD)108: 17 DLR 246 — Cited.

 

Section —43

Permanent Mutwalli—There
is no scope for appointment of a permanent Mutwalli under section 43 of the
Wakf Ordinance.

Abdul Khaleque Sowdagar Vs. Aba Jafar and others, 12BLD(HCD)426 .