http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MARKAZ CONSTRUCTIONS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUGRA HUMAYUN MIRZA WAKF & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/08/1996

BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)84

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      These petitions  are in  respect of a proposed lease of Sugra Humayun  Mirze Wakf  property for  development to  the petitioner. The  Mutawalli of the said Wakf sent to the Wakf Board for  approval a  proposal For giving on lease the said Wakf sand  for development  to one Vallabh Leasing & Finance Private Limited. The Wakf Board, however, decided to grant a lease for development to the petitioner. This was challenged in separate writ petitions by the Mutawalli of the said Wakf and Vallabh  Leasing &  Finance Private  Limited.  The  writ petitions were  allowed. In  separate appeals  filed by  the petitioners as  well as  the Wakf  Board  which  were  heard together, the  Division Bench  of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court has  given certain directions to the Mutawalli, asking him, inter  alia, to  invite fresh  offers. The  petitioners have filed  these  petitions  for  special  leave  from  the judgment and order of the Division Bench.      Under Section  36-A sf  the Wakf  Act,  notwithstanding anything contained  in the  Wakf Deed,  no transfer  of  any immovable property  of the  Wakf by  way, inter  alia, of  a lease for  a period  exceeding one  year in the case of non- agricultural land  or building,  shall be  valid without the previous sanction  of the  Wakf Board. Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf  Rules, 1974  requires that  an application for sanction under  Section  36-A  shall  be  submitted  by  the Mutawalli  to   the  Wakf   Board  and   shall  contain  the particulars set  out therein.  The Board shall on receipt of an application  from the  Mutawalli, publish  in the  Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District Gazette of the district, if any, in  which the  property is  situate, a  notice  of  the proposed transaction.  The notice  published  shall  contain sufficient details  of the  transaction and  shall specify a reasonable time,  not being  less than 30 days from the date of the  publication of  the notice, within which objections, claims or  suggestions may  be sent.  These  shall  be  duly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

considered by the Board before passing orders thereon and if deemed necessary,  after holding an enquiry, in which case a notice of not less 7 full days shall be given to the parties concerned. These  belonging to  the Wakf is used in the best interests of  the Wakf  and any disposal of this property by the Mutawalli is required to be sanctioned by the Wakf Board after following  the procedure  under Rule  12 thus ensuring that there  is a  proper examination  of the proposal in the light of  the objections,  claims or  suggestions  received. These have  to be  considered by  the Board,  if  necessary, after holding  an enquiry. Mutawalli. who is incharge of the management   of   the   Wakf   property   would,   in   such circumstances, be a party concerned with the disposal of the Wakf property  and the  notice would have to be given to him by the  Wakf Board  under the  provision of  sub-rule (4) of Rule 12.  We do  not; see  why the  objections,  claims  and suggestions which  may be received by tile WaKf Board should exclude any  fresh offers  in respect  of the  said property also. Rule 12 does not prevent the Wakf Board from examining such proposals  received as  per that  Rule. The Wakf board, however must  consider the  views of  the Mutawalli  on such proposals. Looking  to the  scheme of  the  provisions,  the provision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has rightly come to  the conclusion  that in the transaction of the kind in question,  where a  long term lease for construction of a commercial complex  on the  Wakf property  is proposed to be issued, the  Mutawalli  must  be  given  an  opportunity  to express his  views on  the choice  of a  contractor and  the Wakf, Board cannot decide the question on its own.      The  Division  Bench  has  directed  the  Mutawalli  to advertise the proposal of the petitioner and to invite fresh offers and  place before  the Wakf  Board for  sanction, the offer that  he may  consider to  be in the best interests of the Wakf.  In the  facts and  Circumstances   this case, the High Court  has directed  the petitioner  to hand  over  the possession of  the Wakf  property to  the Mutawalli  and has directed that  the fact  that the  petitioner  had  obtained vacant possession  of the property will not be considered to give  an   edge  to   the  petitioner   while  choosing  the appropriate contractor. Looking to all the circumstances, we do not  consider this  a  matter  where  intervention  under Article 136 is required.      The special  leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances. there will be no order as to costs.