In the Imambara case, the Allahabad High Court imposed a Rs.15,000 cost on the Shia Waqf Board for hiding facts. The judge said, “Any person guilty of suppression can be thrown out of litigation.”
The Allahabad High Court found the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board guilty of concealing and suppressing essential facts, imposing a cost of Rs 15,000 on the Board.
Justice Jaspreet Singh’s bench dismissed the UP Shia Waqf Board’s claim regarding the private Imambara and residence of Nawab Mohammad Hussain Khan.
Also Read: Yogi Adityanath Slams Waqf Board: ‘No More Wild Claims on Historical Lands!
An Imambara is a Shia Islamic congregation hall or shrine where mourning ceremonies, especially during Muharram, are held to honor the martyrdom of Imam Husayn.
The court stated,
“This is a clear case where the board is guilty of suppression of material facts,”
Emphasizing that such behavior cannot be condoned and that anyone found guilty of such actions can be thrown out of the litigation at any stage.
While the court noted that the Shia Waqf Board’s entire case could be dismissed based solely on this issue, it chose to examine all aspects of the controversy and the pleas presented before rendering a judgment.
Advocates Kashif Iqbal and Syed Ali Murtaza, representing Huma Zaidi, the great-granddaughter of Nawab M.H. Khan, explained that the case stems from a waqf deed executed on March 27, 1934, by the Nawab, who lived in Bareilly.
This deed pertained to 17 shops adjacent to his residence, stipulating that the income generated from these shops would be used exclusively for their maintenance and that of the Nawab’s kothi.
Murtaza elaborated that this arrangement persisted for many years until the Nawab’s only surviving daughter, Nawab Anwar Jahan Begum, filed a civil suit in Bareilly’s civil court to declare the 1934 waqf deed, along with two others, as null and void.
“The UP Shia waqf board contested the civil suit and lost the case. The result was a 1952 judgment passed by the civil court at Bareilly, which stated that the 1934 Waqf deed was illegal because the actual object of the Waqf was neither pious or religious, nor charitable.”
This led the Shia Waqf Board to remove the property from its records.
However, after a span of 17 years, the Board appointed mutawallis or trustees for the Waqf.
Murtaza characterized this action as contemptuous of the law and the Bareilly court’s ruling. Following the 1952 order,
“The board wrote to the concerned District Magistrate, saying that the personal property of the Nawab will remain the waqf’s property, and his daughter cannot claim it.”
Subsequently, the DM instructed authorities in June of the previous year to prevent any construction at the Waqf property that includes an Imambara.
Also Read: Uttarakhand Waqf Board Moves Supreme Court to Support Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
After approaching the Allahabad High Court, Murtaza noted that they received the relief they were seeking.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit, imposing costs of Rs.15,000.
Advocate Saiyed Afzal Abbas Rizvi represented the revisionist, while Advocates Ali Murtaza, Mohammad Tariq Saeed, Mohd Kashif Iqbal, Mohd Altaf Mansoor, and Tanay Chaudhary represented the opposing party, Huma Zaidi.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
