ORDER : 1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Issue rule returnable forthwith. Mr. A.A. Zabuawala, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Mr. V.A. Bukhari, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1. 3. By this petition, inter-alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Gujarat State WAQF Board, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). 4. Tersely stated are the facts. 4.1 The issue revolves around the property of City Survey No. 35, Tika No. 14/2 of Division-A of the District Vadodara, admeasuring 70.08 Sq. Mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). According to the petitioner the property was originally of the ownership and possession of Nooruddin Samsuddin Kagdi. It was mutated in the name of “Mangoriya Vohra Masjid” vide entry no. 8908. Being aggrieved, Inayat Hussain Nooruddin Kagdi, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector seeking cancellation of the name of “Mangoriya Vohra Masjid” and mutating his name as the owner. 4.2 In the proceedings before the Deputy Collector, the respondent no. 2 had filed objection dated 20.10.2003, inter-alia, contending that the said property was originally a masjid of Mangoriya community; however the said Mangoriya community having changed their sect and started following the sect of respondent no. 2, their Masjid for all intend and purpose has been converted to the Masjid of the sect of the respondent no. 2. After considering the application and the objection raised by the respondent no. 2, on 19.10.2004, the Deputy Collector passed an order remanding the matter back to the City Survey Superintendent to pass a fresh order after hearing all concerned. The Office of the City Survey Superintendent, after hearing all the parties, has passed an order dated 24.02.2005 whereby, the name of the Masjid of Mangoriya Bohra Community came to be deleted and the name of Inayat Hussain Nuruddin Kagdi came to be mutated. Accordingly, necessary entry has been effected in the property card on 18.03.2005 recording the details of the order dated 24.02.2005. Accordingly, necessary entry has been effected in the property card on 18.03.2005 recording the details of the order dated 24.02.2005. It is the case of the petitioner, that undisputedly the said order dated 24.02.2005, has not been challenged by the respondent No. 2 before any higher authority and the same has attained finality. 4.3 Subsequently, in the year 2016, Abdulkadar Gulamhussain Mansuri, the power of attorney of Shri Kagdi, has executed the registered sale-deed dated 26.02.2016 in favour of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri. After the demise of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri, the names of her legal heirs were mutated in the property card, and they, in turn, has executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. After the execution of the registered sale-deed, the said transaction has also been mutated in the property card on 27.1.2021. The said mutation entry, has also remained unchallenged. Thereafter, the petitioner, has obtained necessary development permission from the Corporation had started construction. 4.4 According to the petitioner, the property is of the ownership and in possession of the petitioner and that no right or title is in favour of the respondent No. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is to the effect that though the property, is of the ownership of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 surreptitiously and behind the back of the petitioner, has filed a change report No. 545 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 under the provisions of Section 42(1)(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Immediately thereafter, when the petitioner came to know about the filing of the change report, has filed their objection on 28.12.2020 which has been duly received by the Board on 28.12.2020. However, surprisingly, and to the shock of the petitioner, the Board, has passed the order dated 13.01.2021 accepting the change report. The case of the petitioner is that, despite the objection dated 28.12.2020 received by the Board, it has observed that the report, is uncontested. It is the case of the petitioner, that the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the Board, is in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The case of the petitioner is that, despite the objection dated 28.12.2020 received by the Board, it has observed that the report, is uncontested. It is the case of the petitioner, that the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the Board, is in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The respondent, upon issuance of notice, has filed the reply whereby, it is the case of the respondent that at the relevant point of time, a gift deed dated 05.05.1947, was executed gifting the Nagoshiya Masjid to the Dawoodi Vahora Community and since then, it has been known as Dawoodi Vahora Masjid. It is the case of the respondent that Inayathussain Nuruddin Kadgi, was a party to the gift deed dated 05.05.1947 and the possession of the property, was handed over to the respondent No. 2. It is also the case of the respondent that the power of attorney Shri Abdulkadar Gulamrasul Mansuri, has executed a false and fabricated registered sale-deed dated 26.02.2016 in favour of his wife. The power of attorney which has been executed, is of the dead person inasmuch as, Shri Kagdi has passed away in the year 2006 and the wife in the year 2015. Immediately after the death of the wife of Shri Kagdi, Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri had executed sale-deed which raises a suspicion. It is also the stand of the respondent that the petitioner intended to purchase the property in question and hence, had issued the public notice to the advocate for the purpose of title clearance. The respondent no. 2 has raised an objection to the said notice, however ignoring the objections raised, the petitioner has purchased the property. 6. The petitioner, in response to the reply, has also filed the rejoinder, inter-alia, pointing out that after the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, the transaction has been recorded in property card on 27.01.2021 and therefore there is no dispute that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the property. 7. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the change report was filed on 27.10.2020 by the respondent no. 7. Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the change report was filed on 27.10.2020 by the respondent no. 2, under the provisions of section 42(1)(2) of the Act and immediately thereafter, the petitioners have lodged their objection on 28.12.2020, inter-alia bringing it to the notice of the board that the petitioners are owner and occupier of the property and the change report dated 27.10.2021 be not accepted and the petitioners be allowed to enjoy the vacant and peaceful possession of the property. It is submitted that despite the objection was duly received by the board on 13.01.2021, it has accepted the change report. The surprising aspect is that it has been observed that there is no contest to the change report. It is submitted that the order dated 13.1.2021 accepting the change report is against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners have not been heard. 7.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise, from the documents produced on record, it clearly suggest that the petitioners are the owner and occupier of the property, and the respondent no. 2 has no right over the property. It is submitted that the erstwhile owner had initiated the proceedings and upon remand the office of the City Survey Superintendent, Vadodara has passed an order dated 24.02.2005, whereby the name of Shri. Kagdi has been directed to be mutated in the revenue record and the name of “Mangoriya Vohra Masjid” has been deleted. It is submitted that it is not that respondent no. 2 was not aware of the order dated 24.02.2005 for, it was very much party before the proceedings however, the respondent no. 2 has not challenged the said order dated 24.02.2005, and it has attained finality. Further, apropos the order dated 24.02.2005, necessary entry has been mutated in the property card recording the aspect of the order passed by the City Survey Superintendent, Vadodara. 7.2 It is submitted that thereafter, the power of attorney holder i.e. Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri, has executed a sale-deed in favour of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri, upon her death the names of the heirs of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri were mutated and they had executed registered sale-deed dated 28.09.2020 in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, clearly the petitioners are in occupation and possession of the property. Also the aspect of the registration of sale-deed is mutated in the property card on 27.01.2021. Therefore, clearly the petitioners are in occupation and possession of the property. Also the aspect of the registration of sale-deed is mutated in the property card on 27.01.2021. The said order dated 24.02.2005, so also the entries in the property card have not been disputed or challenged by the respondent no. 2. 7.3 As against this, so far as the respondent no. 2 is concerned, it is claiming right over the property on the basis of the gift deed which was executed in the year 1947. It is also unbelievable that if the gift deed was executed in the year 1947, what was the reason available to the respondent to have filed the change report as late as in the year 2020. While referring to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, it is submitted that the requirement envisaged in the said section is to file the report within three months from the occurrence of the change; however, the said change report is apparently beyond the limitation inasmuch as it was in the year 1947 that the gift deed was executed, change whereof has been requested in the year 2020. Therefore also, by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, it was not permissible to the respondent no. 2, to have submitted the change report. It is vehemently submitted that the respondent no. 2 in a surreptitious manner has submitted the change report and that there was a material suppression on the part of the respondent no. 2, the board after accepting the change report without conducting any inquiry and disregarding the objection of the petitioner, has passed order dated 13.01.2021 accepting the change report. 7.4 It is also submitted that immediately after the order dated 13.01.2021, the respondent no. 2 had filed a civil suit before the trial Court along with the Exhibit-5 application; however, the suit as well as the Exhibit-5 application is still pending and not decided. It is submitted that the action on the part of respondent no. 2 of filing change report was only with a view to seeing that they get the ownership so that a suit can be filed before the trial Court seeking declaration. It is submitted that the action on the part of respondent no. 2 of filing change report was only with a view to seeing that they get the ownership so that a suit can be filed before the trial Court seeking declaration. It is therefore urged that the order being in violation of principles of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the board be directed to hear the matter afresh after considering the objections of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M.I. Merchant, learned advocate appearing with Mr. A.A. Zabuawala, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2, submitted that the property was owned by Mr.Nuruddin Samsuddin Kagdi and thereafter by his son Mr. Inayathussen Nuruddin Kagdi. It is submitted that Ghulamhussen Nuruddin and Inayathussen Nuruddin Kagdi had themselves executed the gift deed in favour of their head of the religion. The said gift deed has been duly signed by Inayathussen and Nuruddin. It is thereafter, that the said transaction has been indicated in the revenue record in the name of masjid which continued till 2004 i.e. almost for fifty years. It is thereafter upon application by Nuruddin Kagdi, the matter was remanded and the order dated 24.02.2005 came to be passed by the City Survey Superintendent and Additional Mamlatdar. 8.1 It is submitted that so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned, the whole transaction starting from 2016 is on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted that the sale-deed could not have been executed. Clearly the sale-deed has been executed by the power of attorney of Shri Inayathussen Nuruddin Kagdi who passed away in the year 2006, who was survived by his wife who also passed away in the year 2015. It is submitted that the power of attorney holder could not have executed the sale-deed in the year 2016, i.e. after the death of Shri Inayathussen Kagdi and his wife. It is therefore submitted that the execution of the sale-deed by Shri Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri in favour of his wife, is a fabricated document and cannot be believed. It is also submitted that subsequent transactions have been executed only on the basis of forged power of attorney which can not be accepted. It is therefore submitted that the execution of the sale-deed by Shri Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri in favour of his wife, is a fabricated document and cannot be believed. It is also submitted that subsequent transactions have been executed only on the basis of forged power of attorney which can not be accepted. After the death of Firozabanu A. Mansuri, wife of Shri Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri, the property was acquired by her heirs who have executed the sale-deed in the year 2020 in favour of the petitioner, however the fact remains that in 2016 itself, the sale-deed could not have been executed by Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri in favour of Firozbanu Abdulkadar Mansuri. 8.2 It is therefore urged that respondent no. 2, are highly prejudice inasmuch as the respondent no. 2 has acquired the ownership of the property by virtue of the gift deed which was executed in the year 1947. Accordingly the change report was filed on 27.10.2020 and the order dated 13.01.2020 has been passed by the Board accepting the change report. It is submitted that thereafter the respondent no. 2 has preferred a suit, praying for declaration that the respondent no. 2 are the owner of the property and that the petitioner has no right and cannot be allowed to proceed with the construction. It is also submitted that application Exhibit-5 was filed along with the suit however, the same is still pending and not heard. It is also urged that if the order dated 13.01.2020 goes, the suit filed by the respondent would automatically stand dismissed. Therefore, it is urged that till the time the application is decided by he board, let there be a status quo maintained or else the petitioners are likely to complete the construction, which would be prejudicial to the rights of respondent no. 2. 9. Mr. V.A. Bukhari, learned advocate appearing for the Board did not contest the petition. It is fairly conceded that the objection of the petitioner was not considered by the Board. Upon query by the Court, it has been informed that if the matter is remanded back, the same will be decided within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 10. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents available on the record. 11. Upon query by the Court, it has been informed that if the matter is remanded back, the same will be decided within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 10. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents available on the record. 11. The petitioners have purchased the property vide registered sale-deed 28.09.2020 from the heirs of Abdulkadar Mansuri and apropos which necessary entries have been mutated in the property card on 27.01.2021, recording the transaction in favour of the petitioner. 12. In past, the respondent no. 2 has raised the objection before the Deputy Collector, who after hearing the parties has remanded the matter back to the City Survey office. Inayathussen Nuruddin Kagdi, had initiated the proceedings before the City Survey Superintendent, who after hearing the parties i.e. the Office of the City Survey Superintendent and the Administrator of Mongoriya Vhora Masjid has passed the order dated 24.02.2005. Though, it is a stand of the respondent no. 2, that they were not a party to the proceedings, however, the fact remains that till date it has not challenged the order dated 24.02.2005. By virtue of this order and subsequent entries in the property card, the property was mutated in the name of Inayathussen Nurudding Kagdi, who had executed power of attorney in favour of Abdulkadar Ghulamrasul Mansuri, who in turn has executed a registered sale-deed in the year 2016 in favour of his wife. After the death of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri, the names of the legal heirs of Firozabanu Abdulkadar Mansuri have been mutated in the revenue record, and they in turn, have executed registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. 13. Further, the respondent no. 2 had submitted the change report dated 27.10.2020, requesting the change on the basis of the gift deed dated 05.05.1947. The petitioners have filed objection dated 28.12.2020 and duly received by the Board on 28.12.2020; however, without hearing the petitioners, the order dated 13.01.2021, has been passed. Moreover, it has been recorded that there is no contest or dispute to the change report which in the opinion of this Court is factually erroneous inasmuch as, the objection dated 28.12.2020 raised by the petitioner was very much there. The Board, disregarding the objection and simply accepting the change report has passed the order dated 13.01.2021. Moreover, it has been recorded that there is no contest or dispute to the change report which in the opinion of this Court is factually erroneous inasmuch as, the objection dated 28.12.2020 raised by the petitioner was very much there. The Board, disregarding the objection and simply accepting the change report has passed the order dated 13.01.2021. Clearly, the said order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside only on this limited ground. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Gujarat State Waqf Board, Gandhinagar, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Board, with a direction that the change report No. 545 of 2020, be decided within a period of four weeks’ from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 15. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the civil application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. 16. Needless to state that the proceedings being change report No. 545 of 2020 be decided independently and without being influenced by the observations made in the present order and on its own merits. The parties would cooperate and not seek any unnecessary adjournments.