Wakf property is not for sale

New Delhi, Feb 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today held that once a Wakf is created, the title of the Wakf property vests in the Almighty and Wakif (creator of the Wakf) stands divested of his title and cannot sell this property to anybody else.

A bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Altamas Kabir handed down the ruling while dismissing the petition of the heir of late Chhedi Lal Misra who claimed title to the Wakf property on the basis of a sale deed signed on April 19, 1958 .

One Mirza Mohammed Haider had created a Wakf of his entire property including the disputed one in 1926 and had appointed his son Piarey Mirza as Mutwalli of the Wakf. The Wakf was notified on January 23, 1954 .

In 1958 the Wakif filed a suit for declaration that the properties in question did not constitute a Wakf. Shia Central Board of Wakf, Lucknow was not made a party to the suit.

The Wakif obtained a collusive compromised decree and sold the property to Misra.

Deputy Commissioner issued notice to Misra directing him to hand over the possesssion of the property to the secretary of the Wakf board.

The civil court dismissed the appeal on March 31, 1983. The order of the civil court was challenged in Allahabad High Court and it also dismissed the appeal.

Justice Kabir writing the judgement for the bench which upheld the high court judgement, observed "in our view the law relating to the creation and continuation of the Wakf has been correctly explained by the learned Judge in keeping with the well established principles that once a Wakf is created, the Wakif stands divested of his title to the properties, which after the creation of the Wakf vests in the Almighty .

It is no doubt true that in a given case the creation of a Wakf may be questioned if it is shown that the Wakif had no intention but had done so to avoid a liability. But in the instant case such a stand is not available to the Wakif or the Mutwalli." The court concluded by holding the law was well settled that once a Wakf is created it continues to retain such character which cannot be extinguished by any act of the Mutwalli or anyone claiming through him and dismissed the appeal.

UNI