Friday, April 27, 2018 | ePaper

Management of Waqf estate

  • Print
(From previous issue) :
The learned Advocate further submits that since the registered deed dated 10-3-2004 as well as late Jamaluddin Khan's letter dated 20-12-2015 appointing the petitioner' Mutawalli before' his death has not been claimed to be forged or illegal and therefore the appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with the wishes of the waqif and the original waqf deed and the same cannot be questioned and therefore the impugned order of the respondent No.3 Deputy Administrator of Waqf is not sustainable in law.
7. As against this, Mr Mahbubey Alam assisted by Mr M Fida Kamal and Md Raihanul Mustafa, the learned Advocates for the respondent No.4 submits that in the registered deed dated 10-3-2004 executed by late Jamaluddin Khan he has travelled beyond the wishes of the waqif and the original waqf deed. The learned Advocate submits that the respondent No.4 was appointed official Mutawalli by the respondent No.2 Administrator of Waqf as the respondent No.4 was the elder brother of late Jamaluddin Khan who is a: senior person of the family and competent to conduct the affairs of the waqf estate. Furthermore the learned Advocate further submits that in the said deed of 2004 late Jamaluddin Khan stated how future Mutawallis for the said waqf estate are to be appointed after the death of the petitioner which is contrary to the mode of appointment of Mutawalli stated by the waqif in the original waqf deed. Finally the learned Advocate submits that since the deed of 2004 was made malafide and contrary to the terms of the original waqf deed the said deed should be struck down in its entirety as has been done by the respondent No.3 Deputy Administrator of Waqf . It has been further submitted that the petitioner was acting as Mutawalli prior to the death of Jamaluddin Khan since 2002 and he has been depriving the respondent No. 4 and other beneficiaries from the income of the waqf estate and therefore he has disqualified himself from being appointed as Mutawalli and the impugned order should not be interfered with.
8. It appears that the aforesaid waqf estate was created pursuant to waqf deeds dated 8-10-1945 and 13-6-1947 bearing registration Nos. 857 and 2342 respectively. After the death of the waqif Danu Mia became the Mutawalli. After his death Jamaluddin Khan became the Mutawalli. It may be mentioned that Jamaluddin Khan was alive during the life time of the waqif and he became Mutawal1i in accordance with the terms and wishes of the waqf deed. It appears that by a registered deed dated 10-3-2004 Jamaluddin Khan appointed his son the petitioner as Mutawalli of the aforesaid Waqf estate upon his death. Clause 1 of the Waqf deed states inter alia:
“যদি আমার ঔরষজাত কোন সন্তান সš'তি জন্ম গ্রহণ না করে তাহা হইলে উক্ত মহাং দানু মিঞাই তাহার জীবদ্দশাকাল পর্যন্ত মোতাওল্লী থাকিবে তাহার ম"ত্যুর পর তাহার ঔরষজাত মহাং জামাল উদ্দিন খাঁন মোতাওল্লী হইবে, সে তাহার জীবদ্দশাকাল পর্যন্ত মোতাওল্লী হইবে, সে তাহার জীবদ্দশাকাল পর্যন্ত মোতাওল্লী পদে থাকিয়া আমার এই ওয়াকফ নামার নির্দেশ মত শাসন সংরক্ষণ ও পরিচালন করিয়া পরলোক গমন করতে পূর্বে তাহার নির্দেশানুসারে তাহার মোতাওল্লী নিযুক্ত হইবে এবং থাকিবে, এই প্রকারে পুরুষানুক্রমে উল্লেখিত রূপে প্রত্যেক শেষোক্ত মোতাওল্লীর নির্দেশ মতে মোতাওল্লী নিযুক্ত হইয়া আমার এই ওয়াকফ্্ সম্পতীয়াদী পরিচালিত হইতে থাকিবে”
The aforesaid provision clearly states that Jamaluddin Khan will have complete discretion to appoint a Mutawalli upon his death and the appointed Mutawalli will again be empowered to appoint his successor and in this way through the generations Mutawallis for administering the waqf estate will be appointed in accordance with the original waqf deed and wishes of the waqif. In the instant case the petitioner was appointed Mutawalli by the aforesaid registered deed dated 10-3-2004 by late Jamaluddin Khan. This matter of appointment was also communicated to the respondent No.2 by Jamaluddin Khan by his letter dated 20-12-2015 under the heading ÒcieZx© †gvZvqvjøx wb‡qvM cÖm‡½|Ó which appears in Annexure G of the Affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner. The said letter is reproduced below:
মাননীয়,
ওয়াকফ প্রশাসক,
বাংলাদেশ ওয়াকফ প্রশাসকের কার্যালয়,
নিউ ইস্কাটন, ঢাকা।
সূত্র ঃ ইসি নং-১৩৫৯৮, হাজী আবদুল গণি ওয়াকফ এস্টেট, চট্টগ্রাম।
বিষয়ঃ পরবর্তী মোতায়াল্লী নিয়োগ প্রসঙ্গে।
জনাব, সূত্রে উল্লেখিত ওয়াকফ এস্টেটের বর্তমান মোতোয়াল্লী হই। উক্ত ওয়াকফ এস্টেটের পরবর্তী মোতোয়াল্লী কে হইবে তাহাকে নিয়োগ প্রদানের জন্য ওয়াকফ আমাকে নির্দেশ প্রদান করিয়াছেন। যাহা ওয়াকফ আমাকে নির্দেশ প্রদান করিয়াছেন। যাহা ওয়াকফ দলিলে স্পষ্টতঃ উল্লেখ আছে। তদানুযায়ী বিগত ১০-৩-২০০৪ ইং তারিখে আমি আমার একমাত্র পুত্র আবদুল্লাহ মোহাম্মদ এহতেশামকে পরবর্তী মোতোয়াল্লী পদে নিয়োগ প্রদান করিয়াছি। প্রয়োজনীয় অবগতির জন্য হুজুর সমীপে আমি অত্র নোটিশ প্রদান করিলাম।
অতএব, হুজুর সমীপে আমার বিনীত অনুরোধ আমার ম"ত্যুর পর আবদুল্লাহ মোহাম্মদ এহতেশামকে সূত্রে উল্লেখিত ওয়াকফ এস্টেটের পরবর্তী মোতায়াল্লী হিসাবে নিয়োগ প্রদানে বাধিত করিবেন।
তারিখ-২০-১২-২০১৫ইং
(মোহাম্মদ জামালউদ্দিন খাঁন)
মোতোয়াল্লী
পিতা-মরহুম হাজী দানু মিঞা
২৬৭, চন্দনপুরা, গণি বেকারী
থানা-চকবাজার, জিলা-চট্টগ্রাম,
হাজী আবদুল গণি ওয়াকফ এস্টেট,
চট্টগ্রাম।
Bwm bs-13598|
9. From the aforesaid letter it is clearly apparent that the earlier Mutawalli Md Jamaluddin Khan appointed the petitioner Mutawalli of the aforesaid waqf estate and in the said letter the aforesaid registered deed dated 10-3-2004 has also been mentioned. There is nothing before us to show that the existence of the deed dated 10-3-2004 or the aforesaid letter dated 20-12-2015 has been disputed or that the same has been forged or obtained illegally. No evidence has been adduced or statement made that the signatures of late Md Jamaluddin Khan appearing on the aforesaid letter dated 20-12-2015 or registered deed dated 10-3-2004 are not that of Md Jamaluddin Khan. The only submission by the respondent No.4 is that since in his registered deed of 2004 Md Jamaluddin Khan has given directions for apportioning the income of the waqf estate and appointing subsequent Mutawallis from amongst his decedents contrary to the provisions of the original Waqf Deed therefore the entire deed appointing the petitioner as Mutawalli is to be disregarded. We find the said submission and reasoning totally misconceived; simply because certain provisions of the deed of 2004 are inconsistent with the original waqf deeds does not make the entire deed of 2004 invalid or illegal. The primary objective and purpose of the deed of 2004 was to appoint a Mutawalli for the waqf estate to administer it in accordance with the wishes of the waqf. The submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 that such appointment can only be made when the Mutawalli is on his death bed or when he is in fear of his death has got no substance whatsoever. Human life" is uncertain and one never knows at what moment in time one will expire. It is sufficient if a Mutawalli makes an appointment of his successor in accordance with the terms of the original waqf deed and wishes of the waqifat any time before his death. In the instant case such appointment was categorically made in Md Jamaluddin Khan's deed of 2004 and subsequently communicated by him to the respondent No.2 by his letter dated 20-12-2015 under the heading Ã’cieZx© †gvZvqvjøx wb‡qvM cÖm‡½Ó  leaving no doubt about late Md Jamaluddin Khan's appointment of the petitioner as Mutawalli. Although certain allegations have been made about the administration of the waqf estate by late Md Jamaluddin Khan during his life time, such allegations will not be any impediment to the appointment of the petitioner as Mutawalli of the said waqf estate. If the waqf estate is not managed and administered in accordance with the wishes of the waqif and the original waqf deeds under section 32(1) of the Waqf Ordinance, 1962 the beneficiaries can always lodge complaint to the Respondent No.2 Administrator of Waqf. In such situation the respondent No.2 is empowered to interfere. However, in the present facts before us section 44 of the Waqf Ordinance, 1962 empowering the Administrator of Waqf to appoint Official Mutawalli has no manner of application and therefore the impugned order of appointment of Mutawalli under the said provision of law appears to be illegal and is set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned Memo No.16.02.0000.05.031. 396.57/273 (1-4) dated 1-8-2016 issued by the respondent No.3 and notification published in the Daily Azadi on 4-8-2016, appointing respondent No.4 Mutawalli is hereby declared to have been issued and published without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Concluded)

More News For this Category

Hindu Marriage Dissolution Act needed

Zahid Ahammad Hero :Hindu marriage is treated as a sacrament, or a sanskara, Under Hindu shastra or law, the concept of marriage is more of a religious than secular

Power of absorption is not absolutely discretionary

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Mamnoon Rahman J Shahidul Karim J Monirul Islam (Md) and others ... Petitioners  (in writ petition No. 3451 of  2010) vs Bangladesh Jute

Discrimination in paying financial benefits illegal

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Ashish Ranjan Das J Abdur Rahman and others ..........Petitioners     vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and

Tender age is also a factor of consideration

High Court Division(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Habibul Gani J Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury J Tanjila Begum ............. ........ Convict-Appellant vsState...........Respondent* Judgment September 8th, 2016 Code of Criminal Procedure (V

Demand for encashment of Bank Guarantee cannot be injuncted

(From previous issue) :Therefore such breach of contract will automatically give rise to a claim for damages by the respondents and since the respondents suffered loss and damages due

Demand for encashment of Bank Guarantee cannot be injuncted

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Tariq ul Hakim J Md Faruque (M  Faruque) JJudgment August 23rd, 2016 Akram Hossain................Petitioner in all the Writ Petitioner VsBangladesh Rural Electrification Board,

Bail in an explosive substance case

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Syed Md Ziaul Karim J SM Zakir Hossain J Shagor Prodhan ....... ....................Accused-Appellant vs State ..... Respondent Judgment November 16th, 2016     Explosive

'Youtuka' means gifts made before and also after nuptial fire

Appellate Division (Civil) Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Abdur Rahim Molla ...................... Appellant (In CA Nos. 325 &

Investigation by an ASI does not per se become without jurisdiction

High Court Division  :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Bhabani PrasadSingha J SM Mozibur Rahman J Ziauddin Ahmed ..... .... Accused -PetitionervsState......................................Opposite-PartyJudgment September 10th, 2015.  Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section

Interest can't be reduced or waived by the court of law

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Mamnoon Rahman  J Md Abu Zafor Siddique JSonali Bank ....................................Appellant vs Md Lutfor Rahman and others .......................... RespondentsJudgment February 9th, 2012 Artha Rin