Kutubuddin Fakruddin Faruqui & Ors. v. Gujarat State Waqf Board & Ors., 2026

The dispute concerned a historical holy shrine situated at Anavada village, Patan district, Gujarat.

The appellants, members of the Faruqui family, claimed that the shrine was “Maulana Mehbub Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan.”

According to the appellants, the shrine was built over the grave of Hazrat Maulana Mehbub, who died in 1377 AD, and followed the Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi tradition.

The Faruqui family claimed that their predecessors had served as Mujawars, or caretakers, and subsequently claimed the position of Mutawallis.

The shrine was registered as a public trust in 1953, with Nanibai, described as a Mujawar, registering the property under the name “Maulana Mehbub Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan.”

The respondents claimed that the shrine was actually associated with Maulana Yaqub, a saint of the Dawoodi Bohra community, and sought alteration of the Waqf records accordingly.

Historical revenue records from the Gaekwad State period referred to the property as “Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah, Dawoodi Bohra Kabrastan Pir Ni Jago.”

The Court noted that the description “Maulana Mehbub Dargah Masjid and Kabrastan” appeared in the records only after the trust was registered.

An ancient inscription at the shrine referred to Maulana Yaqub and indicated that he was also respectfully described as Mehboob/Mashuk.

The Faruqui family relied upon their succession as Mujawars and later Mutawallis to support their claim over the shrine's administration.

The Waqf Board had earlier accepted a change report and appointed members of the Faruqui family as Mutawallis, but the High Court found that the statutory procedure had not been properly followed.

In a subsequent proceeding, the Waqf Board ordered alteration of the shrine's name to “Maulana Yaqub Saheb Dargah and Dawoodi Bohra Kabrastan.”

The Waqf Tribunal upheld the Waqf Board's decision and also set aside the earlier appointment of the Faruqui family members as Mutawallis.

The Faruqui family then approached the Gujarat High Court challenging the Waqf Tribunal's decision.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Faruqui family and confirmed the findings of the Waqf Board and Waqf Tribunal.

The Court held that determining the original nature and religious character of the shrine is different from converting an existing place of worship from one religious character to another.

An inquiry undertaken by the Waqf Board to ascertain the historical identity and character of the Waqf property was therefore not barred by Section 3 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The appellants failed to produce reliable documentary material establishing that the shrine originally belonged to the Sunni-Hanafi-Barelvi sect.

Historical revenue records supported the association of the shrine with Maulana Yaqub and the Dawoodi Bohra community.

The ancient inscription at the shrine further supported the connection with Maulana Yaqub.

The Court rejected the claim that the shrine had originally belonged to one sect and was subsequently converted to another.

The Court held that a Mujawar is essentially a caretaker and does not automatically acquire a hereditary right to the office.

The Faruqui family's claim to Mutawalliship could not be sustained merely because its members or predecessors had acted as Mujawars.

In the absence of a Waqf deed prescribing succession, the Waqf Board was required to follow the statutory procedure under Section 63 of the Waqf Act.

The earlier appointment of the Faruqui family members as Mutawallis through the change report was therefore not legally sustainable.

The Court rejected the argument that the Waqf Board's inquiry was invalid merely because a full-fledged oral hearing was not provided.

The appeal was consequently dismissed.

The central legal distinction is between conversion and determination of original religious character.

Section 3 of the Places of Worship Act protects the religious character of places of worship as existing on 15 August 1947; the Court treated an investigation into what that character actually was as different from changing it.

The judgment therefore does not treat every inquiry concerning the historical identity of a religious property as a prohibited conversion.

The Court placed importance on historical and revenue records rather than relying solely on later descriptions appearing in trust-registration documents.

The ancient inscription was considered important corroborative evidence connecting the shrine with Maulana Yaqub.

Registration of a trust under a particular name does not necessarily conclusively establish the historical origin or religious identity of the underlying property.

A Waqf property cannot be treated as the personal property of the persons managing it.

The Court distinguished the position of a Mujawar from that of a legally appointed Mutawalli.

Mere continuation of caretaking responsibilities within a family cannot by itself create a legally recognized hereditary right over Waqf administration.

Section 63 of the Waqf Act becomes significant when there is a vacancy or dispute concerning the right of a person to act as Mutawalli and there is no valid appointment mechanism under the Waqf deed.

The Court also considered the objection concerning natural justice and concluded that the nature of the Waqf Board's inquiry did not make a full oral hearing mandatory.

The decision ultimately upheld the findings of the Waqf Board and Waqf Tribunal on the basis of the historical, documentary and statutory material.