Gujarat HC Upholds Waqf Board Order Restoring Dawoodi Bohra Identity of Patan Dargah, Rejects Faruqui Family's Mutawalli Claim
Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed a first appeal challenging a Waqf Board resolution that corrected the registered name of a disputed Patan dargah and set aside the Faruqui family's appointment as mutawallis, after concurrent findings by the Board and Tribunal went against the appellants.
The High Court of Gujarat, sitting at Ahmedabad, has dismissed a first appeal filed under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, by Kutubuddin Fakruddin Faruqui and three others, who had challenged a resolution passed by the Gujarat State Waqf Board on 24 April 2025 and a consequential order of the Board's Chief Executive Officer dated 30 April 2025. The impugned orders corrected the name of a holy shrine in Survey No. 935, village Anavada, Taluka and District Patan, admeasuring about 1 Acre 21 Gunthas, from “Maulana Mehbub Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan” to “Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah and Dawoodi Bohra Kabrastan”, and also set aside the appellants' earlier entry as mutawallis. The Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal had upheld those orders on 9 February 2026. Justice J.C. Doshi, sitting singly, pronounced judgment on 14 September 2026, after reserving the matter on 11 August 2026, confirming the concurrent findings of both authorities below.
A Dispute Decades in the Making
The dispute has its roots in a registration made in January 1953. When the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came into force in Gujarat, one Nanibai, widow of Jamaluddin Qutbuddin, submitted an application under Section 18 of that Act to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, seeking registration of the public trust. She described herself as the “Mujawar”—caretaker—of the holy shrine and named it “Maulana Mehbub Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan”. The Deputy Charity Commissioner registered the trust on 22 January 1953 as B-97/Mehsana. No waqf deed, no wakfnama, no document evidencing the origin or creation of the trust, and no scheme governing the waqf were produced at the time of registration.
After Nanibai's death on 11 February 1960, her daughter Badibi Jamaluddin Faruqui claimed succession as mujawar and had her name recorded on 1 March 1960. Badibi, in her own statement dated 17 April 1962 before the Mamlatdar, Patan, confirmed that she had taken over the work of “Mujawar” and expressly stated she would not claim ownership over the land.
The first major escalation came in 2011. On 16 July 2011, members of the Dawoodi Bohra community filed an application before the Waqf Board seeking amendment of the waqf register to correct the name of the holy shrine to “Holy Shrine of Maulana Yaqoob, Lakhab Mehboob, Peer-no-Mubarak Roza and Masjid”. This was registered as Change Report/Miscellaneous Proceeding No. 36 of 2011. Simultaneously, in a parallel development, the appellants filed Change Report No. 207 of 2014 before the Waqf Board seeking entry of themselves as mutawallis. The Waqf Board allowed that change report in November 2015 on the ground that it was uncontested, without noticing the pending dispute initiated by the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The Waqf Board eventually passed an order on 9 November 2021 directing alteration of the name and recognising His Holiness the 53rd Dai-ul-Mutlaq, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, as sole trustee. The appellants challenged that order before the Waqf Tribunal, which allowed their appeal in Waqf Appeal No. 38 of 2021 by judgment dated 24 February 2022. Both sides then filed civil revision applications before the Gujarat High Court. A co-ordinate bench, with the consent of both parties, set aside the Waqf Board's order and the Tribunal's judgment together and remitted the matter to the Waqf Board for fresh adjudication. That consent order rendered the earlier findings, including the Tribunal's finding of interpolation in revenue records, non-existent for the purpose of fresh proceedings.
After the remand, the Waqf Board passed Resolution No. 11A on 24 April 2025, and the CEO supplied reasons by order dated 30 April 2025. The appellants challenged this before the Waqf Tribunal in Waqf Appeal No. 15 of 2025. The Tribunal dismissed that appeal on 9 February 2026, also holding that Survey Nos. 911, 915, 935 and 936 were Government wasteland and setting aside Change Report No. 207 of 2014, by which the appellants had been entered as mutawallis. The present first appeal followed.
Four Grounds Raised; None Succeeds
Counsel for the appellants pressed four independent grounds before the High Court, arguing that any single one was sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment.
Quorum of the Waqf Tribunal. The appellants contended that final arguments concluded on 14 October 2025 before a bench of two members, the Chairman and one Member, and that the matter was reserved. A third member, Mr. Pandar, was appointed only around December 2025, after hearing concluded, yet he signed the judgment dated 9 February 2026 as a full concurring author. Relying on the principle that only the authority which has heard a matter is competent to decide it, the appellants argued this was a fundamental defect vitiating the entire judgment.
Justice Doshi rejected this contention by reference to an amendment to Rule 71 of the Gujarat State Waqf Rules notified on 16 August 2024, which inserted a sub-rule clarifying that the Tribunal shall not be treated as non-coram merely because the office of a member is vacant or a member other than the Chairman is absent, and that the Chairman is competent to act in such circumstances. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision in Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust v. Hardik Sitaram Patel, 2025 (0) Gujarat HC 72174, the Court held that a hearing conducted by two members is valid under Rule 71. On the third member's signature, the Court held that it indicated concurrence with the view already expressed by the two members who heard the matter, and did not indicate participation in the hearing itself.
Denial of oral hearing before the Waqf Board. The appellants argued that after the Waqf Board was reconstituted by notifications dated 7 November 2023 and 18 November 2023, no hearing on the merits of Change Report No. 3620 of 2011 was ever conducted. They further argued that the Board passed Resolution No. 11A on 24 April 2025 without deciding a pending preliminary objection filed on 12 February 2025 concerning jurisdiction and maintainability. They also argued that proceedings before the reconstituted Board were conducted by the Chairman or a single member in breach of Regulation 5 of the Gujarat State Waqf Regulations, 2000, which prescribes a quorum of five members.
The Court found that proceedings before the Waqf Board are in the nature of an inquiry and not an adversarial adjudicatory trial. The Board is not required to frame preliminary issues in the manner prescribed under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before transacting its business. The resolution was passed in a duly constituted meeting attended by eight members, with seven supporting the resolution and one not furnishing reasons in opposition. A quorum was present. The Board's power to conduct the business of the change report through its meeting was distinct from the requirement to conduct a judicial hearing in a suit.
Non-transmission of records of Waqf Appeal No. 38 of 2021. The appellants argued that the entire record of the first round of litigation, including the Tribunal's judgment dated 24 February 2022, was deliberately not forwarded to the Waqf Tribunal when it decided Waqf Appeal No. 15 of 2025. Justice Doshi rejected this ground on the basis that the consent order passed by the co-ordinate bench in Civil Revision Application Nos. 179 and 185 of 2022 had set aside the Waqf Board's order and the Tribunal's earlier judgment, rendering those orders non-existent. The appellants could not, therefore, rely upon observations or findings from a judgment that had been wiped from the record by consent.
Jurisdictional excess by the Waqf Tribunal. The appellants submitted that the Waqf Tribunal, while deciding Waqf Appeal No. 15 of 2025, exceeded its jurisdiction by also setting aside Change Report No. 207 of 2014 (by which the appellants were appointed as mutawallis) and by declaring Survey Nos. 911, 915, 935 and 936 to be Government wasteland, neither of which was in issue before it. The Court found that the Tribunal, vested with powers of a civil court under Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act, was entitled to set aside the consequential entry in Change Report No. 207 of 2014 because the appellants' appointment could not survive the finding regarding the original registration and the non-hereditary character of the mujawar's office.
Revenue Records, the Inscription, and the Identity of the Shrine
On the substantive question of the identity of the holy shrine, the Court examined the revenue records in detail. The “Padani Patrak” maintained during the Gaekwad State period from 1915 onwards consistently recorded the name of Maulana Yakub in relation to the property. The extract of Village Form No. 7A annexed by Nanibi herself to her application for registration of the public trust in 1952 reflected an endorsement reading “Maulana Mahboob no Rozo, Maulana Yaqub”. Revenue entries from 1916-17 to 1948-49 recorded the land as “Bohra Kabrastan Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah Dawoodi Pir ni Jago” and “Malansha Pir ni Jago”.
The Court also placed reliance on an ancient inscription affixed to the holy shrine, the existence of which remained unrebutted. Its Gujarati translation, forming part of the Waqf Board's record at File No. 2, reflected the name “Maulana Yaqub” and recorded that Maulana Yaqub was treated as “Mehboob” and “Mashuk” out of respect by the community. The description “Maulana Mehboob Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan” was conspicuously absent from every revenue record produced on the record, including those produced by the appellants themselves.
On the allegation of interpolation of revenue records, the Court noted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patan, had dismissed the criminal inquiry on 15 March 2022 and that the Sessions Court, Patan, had dismissed the revision in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2022 on 25 May 2025. The appellants had not challenged the Sessions Court's order further. The interpolation allegation could therefore not be accepted.
Mujawar Cannot Self-Elevate to Mutawalli
A significant strand of reasoning concerned the legal distinction between a mujawar and a mutawalli. The Court traced the definition of “Mutawalli” under Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, which requires appointment either verbally, under a deed or instrument creating the waqf, or by a competent authority. The expression includes a mujawar appointed by a mutawalli to perform the duties of a mutawalli, but not a mujawar who self-proclaims that status.
Drawing on Wilson's Legal Glossary, Halsbury's Laws of India, B.R. Verma's Mohammedan Law, and the Bombay High Court's Division Bench judgment in Abdul Aziz Valad Haji Subhan v. Mohammed Ibrahim Ghatkari, AIR 1939 Bombay 487, the Court held that a mujawar is a servant of the shrine with no proprietary right, and that the office of mujawarship is not hereditary under Muslim law.
The registration of the trust in 1952-53 was undertaken by Nanibi in her capacity as mujawar, without producing any waqf deed, wakfnama, or document evidencing the origin or creation of the waqf. In the registration form, Nanibi recorded that the mode of succession to the trusteeship would be as decided by the family, and for the masjid, by the congregation of Muslims. The Court found that a mujawar could not, in the first place, validly prescribe a mode of succession. Even on the terms she had recorded, the family could not appoint itself: the congregation of Muslims was required to appoint the trustee for the masjid.
Change Report No. 207 of 2014, by which the Faruqui family had passed an internal resolution appointing themselves as mutawallis, was found to be invalid on two grounds. First, no competent or authorised authority had ever appointed Badibi as trustee, so she could not have resigned from a position she did not hold, and her resignation could not trigger a family succession. Second, the Waqf Board accepted the change report as uncontested without noticing the pending Change Report No. 3620 of 2011 filed by the Dawoodi Bohra community. In the absence of a waqf deed prescribing succession, the Board was required to follow Section 63 of the Waqf Act for the appointment of a mutawalli. It did not do so.
Places of Worship Act Not a Bar to Inquiry
The appellants invoked the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, arguing that Section 3 of that Act bars conversion of a place of worship from one religious denomination or sect to another, and that the 1916-17 revenue records proved Sunni administration well before the cut-off date of 15 August 1947.
Justice Doshi held that the present proceedings do not amount to a conversion of a place of worship. The inquiry conducted by the Waqf Board was aimed at ascertaining the original nature, character and identity of the holy shrine—not at converting an existing place of worship from one sect to another. Neither the trust registration documents nor any document preceding registration identified the shrine as belonging to any particular religious denomination, sect or section of the Muslim community. The appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing that, as on 15 August 1947, the shrine was a Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi place of worship. The Court also found that the dispute is essentially between the Dawoodi Bohra community and the Faruqui family and is not, in substance, a Shia-Sunni sectarian dispute.
The Court further held that Sections 32, 40 and 41 of the Waqf Act empower the Waqf Board to investigate, inquire into and determine the nature and extent of waqf property and to amend the register after due inquiry. Read with Section 10 of the Limitation Act, the Board's power was not extinguished merely because the trust had been registered in 1952 and had continued unremarked until 2011.
Outcome
First Appeal No. 1002 of 2026 was dismissed on 14 September 2026. The concurrent findings of the Gujarat State Waqf Board and the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal were confirmed. Interim relief, if any, stood vacated. The connected civil application was disposed of as not surviving.