Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. - Heard Mr. M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mohd. Sayeed, learned counsel appearing for U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22. 2. 2011 passed by the Chairman, U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf approving/appointing the committee of five members for managing the affairs of the Waqf in question. The petitioner's contention is that Mr. Haji Allah Baksh had created a waqf Alal Aulad and he being the grand son of Mr. Haji Allah Baksh is entitled for managing the affairs of the Waqf and no committee could have been formed. He further relies upon the observations made in the impugned order passed by the Chairman dated 22. 2. 2011 which approves the proposed report of the Superintendent of the Waqf with standard restrictions and says as under: "It seems that the family of waqf is no more, therefore, the C. E. O. may get an enquiry conducted regarding the descendants of waqf and if the line of beneficiaries is no more, the nature of waqf may be changed. Provisions of Waqf deed to be mentioned in report dated 22. 2. 2011. " Mohd. Sayeed, learned counsel appearing for the Waqf Board in response has submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner, though claims right of being approved Mutuwalli being the beneficiary of Alal Aulad but the said issue was settled in the year 2003-04 and that in the year 2006 the committee of three persons was formed, out of which one member of the committee Sri Nauman Athar has tendered his resignation and in his place Sri Asif, Advocate has been co-opted. These facts find mention in the report of the Superintendent of Waqf also, on the basis of which the present committee has been appointed. Submission is that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13. 11. 2006. by means of which the committee was formed, but wants to challenge the subsequent order. Further submission is that an enquiry regarding the nature of the waqf was also conducted and finding that the nature of the waqf has changed from Waqf Alal Aulad to Allal Khair, therefore, committee has been appointed. Mr. M. A. Siddiqui, however, disputes the aforesaid pleas. Further submission is that an enquiry regarding the nature of the waqf was also conducted and finding that the nature of the waqf has changed from Waqf Alal Aulad to Allal Khair, therefore, committee has been appointed. Mr. M. A. Siddiqui, however, disputes the aforesaid pleas. We do find that the dispute of like nature can not be decided in the writ jurisdiction as it requires to establish first the nature of the waqf and then the claim of the petitioner that he being the grand son of Haji Allah Baksh is a beneficiary of the Waqf. Be that as it may, the questions raised being disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal for redressal of his grievance.