Court affirms Waqf Board's inquiry findings, rejects Faruqui family's claim as Mutawallis, and validates change of shrine's identity to Dawoodi Bohra community; principles of natural justice upheld without mandatory oral hearing.
In a landmark judgment dated September 14, 2026, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the first appeal filed by Kutubuddin Fakruddin Faruqui and others challenging the Gujarat State Waqf Board's resolution and subsequent Chief Executive Officer's order concerning the administration and identity of a disputed holy shrine located in village Anawada, Patan district. The shrine, historically contested between the Faruqui family (claiming Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi heritage) and the Dawoodi Bohra community (claiming Shia affiliation), was the focal point of a protracted legal battle spanning decades.
The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Waqf Board and the Waqf Tribunal that the shrine was not a Sunni waqf as claimed by the appellants but belonged to the Dawoodi Bohra community, and that the appellants, who had been recorded as "Mujawar" (caretakers) without any proprietary rights, could not lawfully claim the status of "Mutawalli" (trustee). The Court found that the registration of the shrine by Nanibi, widow of Jamaluddin Qutbuddin, in 1953 as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, was done without any documentary evidence of creation of waqf or mode of succession, and the appellants' claim to mutawalliship based on an internal family resolution was contrary to Muslim law and the established mode of succession.
A key aspect of the judgment was the Court's emphasis on the legal distinction between the office of "Mujawar" and "Mutawalli," holding that a Mujawar is merely a caretaker servant with no ownership or hereditary rights, while a Mutawalli must be appointed by a competent authority or in accordance with recognized custom or the waqf deed. The Court observed that the appellants had failed to produce any valid appointment or deed to substantiate their claim as Mutawallis and that their appointment via an internal family resolution and change report was invalid. The Waqf Board was rightly empowered under Sections 40 and 41 of the Waqf Act, 1995, to inquire and amend the waqf register after due inquiry.
The Court addressed procedural challenges raised by the appellants, including allegations of denial of oral hearing and lack of quorum in the Waqf Board's meeting that passed the impugned resolution. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that the inquiry conducted by the Waqf Board was quasi-judicial in nature and did not mandate a full-fledged trial or mandatory oral hearing. Written submissions and participation by the appellants sufficed. The meeting held on April 24, 2025, was duly quorate with eight members present, and the resolution was validly passed despite one dissenting member. The Chief Executive Officer's order authenticating the resolution was within the scope of his statutory duties.
Regarding the contention that the change in the shrine's identity violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Court clarified that the dispute pertained to the original identity and character of the waqf property and was not a case of conversion of a place of worship after August 15, 1947. The appellants failed to provide evidence that the shrine was Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi as of the cut-off date. Therefore, the inquiry and correction of the register by the Waqf Board were not barred by the said Act.
The Court also dealt with allegations of fraud and interpolation in revenue records. While the appellants alleged manipulation, the Court noted that criminal inquiries into such allegations had been dismissed by the Magistrate and Sessions Court, and no challenge to those orders was pending. The Court reiterated the settled principle that fraud vitiates all acts and held that the appellants' foundational claim was based on a fraudulent registration which could be rectified by the Waqf Board.
Finally, the Court rejected the appellants' submission that the Waqf Tribunal's judgment was invalid due to the participation of a third member who had not heard the matter. The Court noted the amendment to Rule 71 of the Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2024, allowing valid hearing and decision even if one member remains absent, and held that the judgment signed by the third member was valid and did not vitiate the proceedings.
With these findings, the Gujarat High Court confirmed the Waqf Tribunal's dismissal of the appellants' appeal, upheld the Waqf Board's resolution and CEO's order, and dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment affirms the Waqf Board's authority to inquire into and determine the nature and administration of waqf properties, emphasizing adherence to Muslim law principles, statutory procedures, and natural justice.
Bottom Line:
Waqf Board and Waqf Tribunal upheld in changing the register of the disputed shrine on the basis of pre-1953 revenue records and holding that the appellants, being only mujawar (caretakers), had no hereditary right to claim mutawalliship; challenge rejected for want of merit.
Statutory provision(s):
Waqf Act, 1995 Sections 3(r), 3(i), 32, 40, 41, 50, 63, 64, 68, 69; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 Section 18; Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 Section 3; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 11, Order XIV Rule 2; Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2000 Regulation 5; Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 2024 Rule 71.
Kutubuddin Fakruddin Faruqui v. Gujarat State Waqf Board, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979918
