JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The petitioners who claim to be beneficiaries of Sk. Hazari Wakf Estate, which was created by one Sk. Hazari, son of Haji Multan of English Bazar, Malda, by a registered deed of Wakf dated 1.2.1923, has impeached an order in annexure "D", which is dated February, 23, 1973, and issued by the Commissioner of Wakf, West Bengal allowing thereby a joint petition dated January 10, 1973, praying for compromise of a Suit and sale of 4 cottahs of land at Rs. 2000/- per cottah, under khatian No. 137 out of Dag No. 78 of Mouza Maheshmati, to one Shri Ramendra Kumar Banik (respondent No.5), by the present Mutwallis Md. Reazul Islam and Md. Serajul Islam (respondents Nos. 3 and 4). 2. It has been stated that the said Wakf was created for some specified purposes and specific intentions. Such purposes and intentions would be available from the Wakf deed which is annexure "A" to the petition. By the said deed, particularly it was stipulated amongst others that in any event the Wakf property would not be transferred by anybody including the Mutwalli and his other heirs in any way viz., by way of sale, gift and exchange etc. It has also been stipulated in the said Wakf deed that the last Mutwalli should nominate his successor Mutwalli. It has been alleged by the petitioners that after the death of one Abdul Ahmed, the second Mutwalli, there has been no such nomination of the succeeding Mutwalli. Such statement has been made for the purpose of establishing the charge against the present Mutwallis, who are respondents Nos. 3 and 4, not having been duly appointed by valid nomination and as such the transfer, particulars whereof would be mentioned hereinafter as made by the present Mutwallis or any action taken by them for the sale of lands in question to the respondent No.5, was irregular. 3. It appears from the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 appearing through Bhabesh Ghosh Roy that previously the petitioners have leased out properties belonging to the Wakf Estate and more particularly properties as involved in this petition for 99 years. Such lease was effective on and from July 21, 1971. 4. 3. It appears from the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 appearing through Bhabesh Ghosh Roy that previously the petitioners have leased out properties belonging to the Wakf Estate and more particularly properties as involved in this petition for 99 years. Such lease was effective on and from July 21, 1971. 4. A suit, being O. C. Suit No. I of 1971, was instituted in the court of the First Munsif, Maida, by the Mutwallis, who were respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein against the said respondent No.5, Ramendra Kumar Banik and another, for declaration that the transfer which was made was fraudulent. Another Suit, being Suit No. II of 1975, was also filed in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Malda, for the removal of Mutwalli Abdul Ahmed and for appointment of proper Mutwallis in respect of the said Wakf Estate. It appears from the statements as made in the petition of the said respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that all the beneficiaries including the petitioners were parties to the said suit, being Suit No. II/57. During the pendency of the suit, Abdul Ahmed respondent No.2 died and his heirs were duly substituted. Ultimately, a compromise decree was passed in the said suit by the learned Subordinate Judge on September 11, 1959, appointing respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein as Mutwallis of the said Wakf Estate. Of the said Mutwallis one Abdul Ahmed has admittedly left for Pakistan now known as Bangladesh and admittedly the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are acting as Mutwallis. Such acting on their part, of course, has been denied and disputed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, those Mutwallis respondent Nos. 3 and 4 made an application before the Commissioner of Wakf respondent No.1 on January 10, 1973 for necessary permission or sanction to execute a solenama for the purpose as mentioned in annexure C and whereupon the sanction in annexure D was granted. 5. Mr. Islam appearing in support of the Rule has stated that such sanction was irregular and void because while granting such sanction, the intention of the maker of the deed has not been honoured. 5. Mr. Islam appearing in support of the Rule has stated that such sanction was irregular and void because while granting such sanction, the intention of the maker of the deed has not been honoured. He also submitted that the sanction as granted is also inoperative and void, apart from being against principle of natural justice, as there was non-compliance with the provisions of sections 28 and 54 of the Bengal Wakf Act 1934, as modified up to 10th April 1961. He submitted that section 54 which deals with the power of the Commissioner to grant sanction in respect of transfer, requires that before such sanction is granted, a notice to persons interested, in such manner as the Commissioner may think fit, should be given and on such notice being issued those interested persons must be heard. That fact, according to Mr. Islam, not having been complied with, the action in granting the necessary sanction became inoperative. He also submitted that this inaction on the part of the respondents was also against the principles of natural justice. Mr. Islam further referred to section 28, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the intention of the maker or the directions as contained in the Wakf Deed should be considered by the Commissioner and in the instant case steps have not been taken according to the terms as mentioned therein and such procedure not having been duly followed, the sanction which was granted, was also inoperative. 6. Miss. Parmar appearing for respondent No. 1 was granted time to inform this Court whether any notice in terms of section 54 was issued or persons interested viz., the petitioners herein, were heard in the matter. It was also required of her to inform this Court, whether the Commissioner has recorded any reason for not effecting service of the notice on the interested persons. She on instructions, has informed this Court that neither any such notice was issued by the Commissioner nor he has recorded any reason for not issuing such notice to the petitioners herein. It was also required of her to inform this Court, whether the Commissioner has recorded any reason for not effecting service of the notice on the interested persons. She on instructions, has informed this Court that neither any such notice was issued by the Commissioner nor he has recorded any reason for not issuing such notice to the petitioners herein. Reading Section 54, I am of the view that before any action is taken in the manner which has been done in the instant case, it was required of the Commissioner, respondent No. 1 to issue a notice on the beneficiaries or persons, interested viz., the petitioners in this case and on such notice being given it was also obligatory on his part to give the petitioners a hearing if they had asked for the same, before granting necessary sanction in terms of Annexure D. It is also obvious that under section 28 the Commissioner in the instant case was required to consider the intention of the Wakif or the directions as contained in the Wakf Deed. 7. Mr. Ghosh Roy appearing for respondents Nos. 3 and 4, has stated that this Rule at the instance of the petitioners who have not admittedly acted in a bonafide manner and that too on consideration of their conduct particulars whereof have been mentioned hereinbefore, should not be entertained. He further submitted that the sale in the instant case having been effected by execution of a dated on March 16, 1973 and the Rule having been obtained thereafter on May 17, 1973, this Court should not also make any interference or pass any order whereby an act which has become final would be rejected or given a go-bye. That apart, he submitted that when the petitioners for the self-same lands have acted contrary to the intention of the Wakf, by leasing out to respondent No.5, they cannot now turn round and say that the sanction which has been obtained for the sale of 4 cottahs of lands out of those lands, which were already leased out to respondent No.5 by the present Mutwallis, would be invalid. 8. It is true that in a Writ proceeding the conduct of the petitioners will have to be considered. 8. It is true that in a Writ proceeding the conduct of the petitioners will have to be considered. Here, in the instant case, there is no doubt that the petitioners themselves had taken steps in leasing out the land as aforesaid, against the intention of the Wakif and the directions contained in the Wakf Deed. In this matter, Mr. Ghosh Roy is quite correct in submitting that the petitioners would be bound by their own conduct and as such, they will not be entitled to challenge the sanction as given, in this proceeding. That apart, admittedly the petitioners herein were parties in the suit, wherein necessary sanction was obtained for effecting the settlement and which in fact has been compromised. There is no evidence forth-coming as to whether the petitioners themselves, before the suit was settled in the manner and circumstances as mentioned hereinbefore, have raised any objection. They had every right to have the matter regarding the irregular sanction, thrashed out before the suit was directed to be settled or which has actually been settled and they, not having taken such steps would be estopped from raising any plea, the effect whereof would be to bye-pass the effect of the decree, which was so and duly passed by the proper court. 9. Mr. Islam also raised a point regarding validity of the appointment of the present Mutwallis. But in view of the prayers as made on the basis of the order in Annexure D, I am not required to make any determination on that point, and the more so when admittedly a suit has been filed in 1972 by the petitioners, for removal of Mutwallis, and the said suit is still pending. 10. In view of the above, the application fails, so also the Rule and the same is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Let it be recorded that this will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners, if they have any other forum for the purpose of having the necessary redress. Although Mr. Ghosh Roy mentioned that affidavit has been served on Mr. Islam, Mr. Islam has made it clear that he has not been able to file any reply because such affidavit has been misplaced. In any event, he has not admitted the allegation contained in the opposition. Mr. Although Mr. Ghosh Roy mentioned that affidavit has been served on Mr. Islam, Mr. Islam has made it clear that he has not been able to file any reply because such affidavit has been misplaced. In any event, he has not admitted the allegation contained in the opposition. Mr. Islam further prayed for a direction that the character of the suit property should not be changed for six weeks. To that Mr. Ghosh Roy has not objected and as such I direct that the character of the suit property should not be changed for six weeks.