Introduction:

In K. Md. Sadiq & Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer, Waqf & Ors., Writ Appeal No. 845/2016, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, delivered a landmark ruling. The bench upheld the Waqf Board’s intervention under Section 65(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995, allowing it to assume control of the Shahji Jamia Mosque, Adoni, even though management was governed by a judicial scheme set decades earlier. The court found that compelling evidence of serious mismanagement, including the misappropriation of approximately Rs. 150 crore and failure to maintain mandatory financial records, justified the takeover. This ruling reinforces the Board’s statutory superintendence over waqf properties and clarifies its overriding authority in cases of malpractice—even when a court-prescribed governance model is in effect.

Arguments by the Appellants:

The appellants—comprising trustees and stakeholders of the Shahji Jamia Mosque—challenged the Waqf Board’s takeover order dated May 17, 2016. They maintained that the intervention violated the District Court’s 1921 judicial scheme and a compromise decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1951, which had established an electoral and managerial structure for the mosque. Additionally, they cited High Court orders in W.P. Nos. 336/2014, 10457/2016, and 13150/2016, which compelled elections as per the original scheme. The appellants asserted that Section 108A and Section 32 of the Waqf Act shielded the judicially formulated scheme from being overridden by executive action. They argued there was no decisive evidence of mismanagement; mere registration of criminal cases, they said, did not justify such drastic interference, especially without proof. Payment default or delayed filings alone, without demonstrable misappropriation, did not warrant seizure under Section 65(5). Thus, they urged the High Court to quash the takeover as a breach of judicial authority.

Arguments by the Waqf Board:

The Waqf Board, supported by its Chief Executive Officer and represented by Advocate Shaik Khaja Basha, countered that Section 65(5) grants broad powers to assume direct control of a waqf in cases of “evident mismanagement,” regardless of judicial schemes. It was emphasised that mismanagement had been confirmed through multiple indicators: Rs. 150 crore allegedly misappropriated; failure to submit annual income and expenditure accounts; non-compliance with budgetary regulations; and ongoing criminal investigations—all establishing a prima facie case for intervention. These circumstances, the Board argued, fell squarely within its statutory duty to preserve waqf assets. Electoral scheme procedures did not negate the Board’s overarching superintendence and control mandated by Section 32 and reinforced by Section 108A. The Board maintained that elections and trustee management could not be allowed to act as a shield for economic neglect or wrongdoing. Duty-bound under the Act to protect waqf property, it asserted, the takeover was lawful, necessary, and proportional to the threat posed.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

The Division Bench upheld the Board’s takeover, dismissing the appeal. It first clarified that Section 65(5) empowers the Waqf Board to step in and assume direct control when mismanagement is apparent—even if the waqf is managed according to a judicial scheme—because Sections 32 and 108A cannot be invoked to thwart the Board’s statutory duty to maintain waqf integrity. While noting that criminal charges alone do not confirm guilt, the court held that when non-submission of accounts coincides with alleged massive financial misappropriation, it creates strong grounds for intervention. The court found no procedural irregularity in the takeover and observed that the judicial scheme primarily dealt with trustee elections and structured governance—not financial probity or statute compliance. It concluded that the Board acted within its statutory remit to prevent further dissipation of waqf assets. Accordingly, the impugned order was upheld, and the writ appeal dismissed.