MP High Court Rules CEO Cannot Add Private Land To Waqf Property Without Board Approval

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board that sought to include privately owned land within an existing waqf property, holding that the Chief Executive Officer could not enlarge the area of a waqf merely on the directions of the Board Chairman without approval of the Board itself.

Justice Deepak Khot, while allowing a writ petition filed by Smt. Khalida Bee and others, ruled that the impugned order dated March 7, 2012 was “without jurisdiction” and therefore liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners were represented by advocates Himanshu Mishra and Bhanu Pratap Singh. The Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board was represented by advocates Utkarsh Agrawal and Atul Khare, while respondents 3 to 6 were represented by advocates Sanjana Sahni and Bhanu Pratap.

The dispute concerned land purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deeds executed in December 2010 and February 2011. According to the petitioners, the land had always been recorded in revenue records in the names of their predecessors in title. They argued that a 1989 notification had declared only limited portions of Survey Nos. 290 and 292 as waqf land, measuring 0.20 hectares and 0.10 hectares respectively, while the remaining land continued to remain private property.

However, the Chief Executive Officer of the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board later issued an order under Section 41 of the Waqf Act, 1995, enlarging the waqf area to include the petitioners’ land as well. The petitioners challenged the order before the High Court, contending that Section 41 empowered only the Board to amend the register of waqf properties and not the Chairman acting individually.

During the hearing, the Board argued that the order should still be treated as an order of the Board because it had been passed on the Chairman’s instructions. It further contended that once property was declared waqf, disputes could only be adjudicated before the Waqf Tribunal through a suit under Sections 7 or 83 of the Act.

Rejecting the submission, the High Court examined the statutory scheme governing the constitution and powers of the Waqf Board. The Court noted that the Board is a collective body constituted under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act and consists of several members. Therefore, the Chairman alone could not exercise powers specifically vested in the Board.

The Court found from the official note sheets that the decision had indeed been taken solely on the Chairman’s directions and later communicated by the Chief Executive Officer. “The order communicating the dictate of the Chairman of the Board cannot be said to be an order passed by the Board,” the Court observed.

Justice Khot further held that the impugned action amounted to an attempt to expand the area already notified as waqf property without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act. The Court observed that no subsequent government notification had been issued for the remaining land and therefore the Board could not “adopt a different method by invoking powers under Section 41 to declare or register the land to be a Waqf property.”

The Court also rejected the argument regarding availability of an alternative remedy before the Tribunal, holding that writ jurisdiction could still be exercised where an order was passed without authority. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Court reiterated that orders passed wholly without jurisdiction are void ab initio and can be challenged directly before the High Court.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the March 7, 2012 order and clarified that the parties would remain free to pursue their remedies before the Tribunal in accordance with law.

Case Title: Smt. Khalida Bee and Others v. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Boards and Others

Date of Order: April 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot