ORDER : 1. Heard Sri.Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Chand Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Sri.Mahmood Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Anand Kumar M., learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Respondent No.2 in Application No.1/21 before the Waqf Tribunal is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 13.06.2022. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. An application under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act 1995 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision petition. 3.2. The application relief reads as under: “Wherefore, the applicants most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: a. Call for the original records from the respondents in the matter including the impugned resolutions. b. Set aside the impugned resolutions dated 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 at Annexure-A and B respectively passed by the respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity. c. Award cost of this application. d. Grant any other or further relief/s to the applicants as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deems fit and thinks proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.” 3.3. It is contented in the application that respondent No.1 is the Sajjadanasheen and customary Mujawar and petitioner No.1 is the co-mujawar of Dargah Hazrath Tawakkal Mastan Shah, Soharwadi (R.A.) situated at O.T.C. Road, Cottonpet, Bangalore - 53. 3.4. Based on such positions, they were the custodians of the said dargah including the key of the locks. 3.5. It is further contented that as per provision 220 in Chapter XII of Mohammedan law, Sajjadanasheen is a teacher of the religious doctrine and rules of life and he is the manager and in that capacity, administrator/executive of the institution and administrator of its charities. 3.6. The status of Sajjadanasheen is higher than that of a mutawalli. Sajjadanasheen is the Head of the Institution of Dargah and Khanquah. 3.7. Succession to the office of the Sajjadanasheen is regulated by custom and during the lifetime, Sajjadanasheen can nominate his successor. 3.8. 3.6. The status of Sajjadanasheen is higher than that of a mutawalli. Sajjadanasheen is the Head of the Institution of Dargah and Khanquah. 3.7. Succession to the office of the Sajjadanasheen is regulated by custom and during the lifetime, Sajjadanasheen can nominate his successor. 3.8. It is further contented that as per sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Waqf Act, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, in respect of any Waqf, can exercise the power vested in the said provision and Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the Waqf. 3.9. Purpose of the Wakf and any usage or custom of the Waqf sanctioned by the School of Muslim law to which the Waqf belongs. There is no specific power conferred on the Waqf Board under the Wakf Act insofar as the appointment of Sajjadanasheen. 3.10. It is further contented that R.Nisar Ahmed is the true father of the petitioners and he was the Sajjadanasheen as also he was the hereditary and customary Mujawar of the above said Dargah. 3.11. Prior to him, his father, grandfather, great grandfather were the Sajjadanasheen and Mujawars of the Dargah in question during their lifetime. 3.12. R.Nisar Ahmed said to have died on 21.03.2020 leaving behind petitioners herein. It is further contented that R.Nisar Ahmed during his lifetime has nominated petitioners herein as Sajjadanasheen and bestowed hereditary and customary post of Mujawars. 3.13. It is also contended that he had submitted a letter of intimation on 02.03.2020 before the Chief Executive of Karnataka State Board of Waqf intimating about the nomination of the petitioner herein to the post of said Dargah. 3.14. Further it is contented that gazette notification dated 07.06.1965, Dargah Hazrath Tawakkal Mastan Shah belonging to Sunni Muslim is a notified Waqf institution. 3.15. It was declared under the said notification that administration of the said Dargah shall be only by custom. The customs that has been followed by Sunni Muslim is being followed in respect of the Dargah and any other resolution contrary to the said custom is thus illegal and sought for the aforesaid prayer. 3.16. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner herein who was respondent No.2, filed detailed written objection by contending that application is not only barred by time but the contents in the application are not maintainable. 3.17. 3.16. Pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner herein who was respondent No.2, filed detailed written objection by contending that application is not only barred by time but the contents in the application are not maintainable. 3.17. He has referred to the civil suits in O.S.No.20/2018 and 9/2020 in respect of the management of the Dargah. 3.18. He has also relied on the orders passed in Application No.6/2016 and resolution dated 16.02.2012 and 21.01.2013 to show that during the lifetime of R.Nisar Ahmed itself, the administration of the Dargah is taken of from R.Nisar Ahmed by passing the resolution and therefore, the application is not maintainable. 4. Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, recorded the evidence of the parties and thereafter, allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.25 to 28 as under: “25) The Respondents have relied on IA No.2 in OS No.9/2020 dated 14.12.2020 against the present applicants. The Police protection was sought for, is rejected. The respondents have not placed the order passed in IA No. 1 in the said OS No.9/2020. The copy of the final order dated 05.10.2021 in CRP is placed by the Respondents. The copy of the letter dated 18.06.2020 addressed by Karnataka State Board of Waqf to the police is not helpful for the 2nd Respondent to show that notice was caused to Late R Nisar Ahmed before the Impugned Resolutions were passed by the Respondent. 2nd Respondent Managing Committee has not given any opportunity to Late R Nisar Ahmed before passing the Impugned Resolution against him on the basis of Jamath and fathwa relied by them therein. The Impugned Resolutions passed against him are without any notice to Late Nisar Ahmed. There is no copies of the notice served to Late Nisar Ahmed even after resolutions came to be passed impugned resolution came to be passed against R Nisar Ahmed that he should not claim as Sajjadanasheen and Customary Mujawar of the Dargah Hazrath Tawakkal Masthan Shah. 26) Even though the Managing Committee is not a statutory body but when the resolution is passed against persons behind his back without notice served on him and no opportunity was given to Late R Nisar Ahmed to represent him as to why he is claiming himself as Sajjadanasheen or hereditary mujawar of Dargah Hazarath Tawakkal Masthan Shah. 26) Even though the Managing Committee is not a statutory body but when the resolution is passed against persons behind his back without notice served on him and no opportunity was given to Late R Nisar Ahmed to represent him as to why he is claiming himself as Sajjadanasheen or hereditary mujawar of Dargah Hazarath Tawakkal Masthan Shah. The Impugned resolutions are not sustainable in law. They are passed behind the back of R. Nisar Ahmed after his death. The applicants are sons of R. Nisar Ahmed who have succeeded him claiming the Sajjadanasheen 1st Applicant as Mujawar and 2nd applicant as Co-mujawar of the Dargah Hazarath Tawakkal Masthan Shah. 27) The Managing Committee at least could have served notice to his sons before passing any resolution against R.Nisar Ahmed. The resolutions at Annexure A and B respectively call in question by sons of Late R Nisar Ahmed who themselves claim to be the Sajjadanasheens and hereditary mujwar to the Dargah Hazarath Tawakkal Masthan Shah. There are litigations pending between the parties in OS No.9/2020. 28) In my considered opinion the Impugned Resolution passed by Managing Committee behind the back of Late R Nisar Ahmed are not binding on the present applicants. These resolutions which are passed vide Annexure A and B without giving opportunity Late R Nisar Ahmed are to be removed from the records and they are not binding on present applicants. The applicants have made out sufficient grounds to show that the present resolutions are passed during the life time of the father are without giving any opportunity to them. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.” 5. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 is before this Court in this revision petition on the following grounds: ? “That the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Wakf Tribunal is ex facie illegal, erroneous and not sustainable in law. The Order of the Tribunal is therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside. ? At the outset the resolutions under challenge before wakf tribunal admittedly passed on 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 respectively and the Respondents questioned the legality and correctness of the same in the year 2021 i.e. after lapse of almost 9 years. There is huge delay and astonishingly the trial court has not at all considered the same. ? ? At the outset the resolutions under challenge before wakf tribunal admittedly passed on 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 respectively and the Respondents questioned the legality and correctness of the same in the year 2021 i.e. after lapse of almost 9 years. There is huge delay and astonishingly the trial court has not at all considered the same. ? That admittedly the resolutions passed on 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 wherein the father of the respondents R.Nisar Ahmed has been appointed as Mujawar subjected to the terms and conditions of the said resolutions. The father of the Respondents R.Nisar Ahmed during his life time has not questioned the validity and legality of the resolutions. Hence the resolutions has attained finality. ? That the children of R.Nisar Ahmed i.e. Respondent NO.1 and 2/Applicant has no locus standi to question the validity or correctness of the resolutions, as the same is passed in favour of his father R.Nisar Ahmed who during his life time has accepted the same and never questioned it. Hence the Respondents NO.1 and 2 has no locus standi and hence the Application NO.1/2021 itself is not maintainable. ? The contention and basis to file the Application 1/2021 by the respondents itself is contradictory, on the one hand they claim hereditary rights of Sajjadanasheen through their father Late. Sri. Nisar Ahmed and on the other hand Late Nisar Ahmed has been appointed only as Mujawar and the condition precedent of such appointment is he should not accompany his name in further as title of Sajjada Nasheen or any similar to that and further the title of Mujawar will not be applicable to his son or any relatives. Only the Committee has rights to appoint Mujawar and that particular person is named as Mujawar. ? The children of R.Nisar Ahmed ise. Respondent No.1 and 2/Applicants are not the aggrieved parties to challenge the Resolution of the year 2012 and 2013. As the resolutions passed by the Petitioner not in their favour. ? The father of the respondent No.1 and 2 being the beneficiary of the resolutions enjoyed the Mujawarship till the date of his death. After his death his children i.e. Respondents cannot challenge the same. ? As the resolutions passed by the Petitioner not in their favour. ? The father of the respondent No.1 and 2 being the beneficiary of the resolutions enjoyed the Mujawarship till the date of his death. After his death his children i.e. Respondents cannot challenge the same. ? As a matter of fact, the Petitioner had previously filed Application in Application No.6/ 2016 before Wakf Tribunal against the Officer on Special Duty to Hon'ble Minister for Haj and Wakf and against father of the respondents R.Nisar Ahmed. In the said case it is specifically contended of the behalf on Petitioner/Managing committee that the committee never recognized Nisar Ahmed as hereditary Mujawar of the Dargha and the resolution dated 11.09.2013 of the Committee has not recognized the right of the Nisar ahmed as hereditary Mujawar and it is contended that he was only authorized to perform the duties of Mujawar of Dargha. Further, the Wakf Tribunal has observed in the order that "It is true that the Managing committee by its resolution entrusted certain function with the 2nd Respondent (R.NISAR AHMED father of the Applicant). But the Managing Committee being an elected body, is the controlling authority. So the 2nd Respondent (R.Nisar Ahmed father of the Applicant) cannot say that he is the above Managing Committee. The power is vested with the Managing committee ever to modify its earlier resolution also." The copy of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Application NO.6/2016 is herewith produced as DECUMENT NO.6. ? It is further submitted that Application No.6/2016 has admittedly contested by the father of Respondent NO.1 and 2 and in the year 2016 itself the Wakf Tribunal has made the above observations regarding Resolution of 2012 and 2013 and his rights pursuant to the Resolutions. The applicants father is very much aware of the same and it was well within his knowledge. If he would have aggrieved by the said resolutions of 2012 and 2013 he would have the challenge same. However, Late. Sri.R.Nisar Ahmed father of the applicant never challenge the said resolutions at least subsequent to the order in Application NO.6/2016. ? It is submitted that the Respondent NO.1 and 2/Applicants fraudulently and clandestinely contended in memorandum of Application at para NO.14 that "the Applicants came to know about the impugned suo-moto resolutions of the Managing Committee in the legal proceedings in O.S.NO.20/2018 and O.S.NO.9/2020". ? It is submitted that the Respondent NO.1 and 2/Applicants fraudulently and clandestinely contended in memorandum of Application at para NO.14 that "the Applicants came to know about the impugned suo-moto resolutions of the Managing Committee in the legal proceedings in O.S.NO.20/2018 and O.S.NO.9/2020". The said statement is factually incorrect, false and misleading. As a matter of fact, their father Late. Sri. Nisar Ahmed is aware of the same ever since from the beginning. At least during the year 2016 in APPLICATION NO.6/2016. Since he was aware of the said resolutions he never question the same during his life time. ? It is submitted that undisputedly Janab R.Nisar Ahmed father of the Applicants/Respondents NO.1 and 2 died on 21.03.2020. During his life time the Managing Committee has instituted a suit restraining him from identify himself as Sajjadanasheen etc in O.S.NO.20/2018. Wherein also it was specifically contended that the father of the Applicants Late. Sri.Nisar Ahmed has been appointed by the Petitioner managing Committee as Mujawar only by virtue of the resolutions of 2012 and 2013. As a matter of fact, the said suit was contested by Late. Sri. Nisar Ahmed during his life time. However, he never questioned or challenged the resolutions dated 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013. The copy of the Written statement filed by Late. Sri. Nisar Ahmed and Applicant in O.S.NO.20/2018 is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.7 ? It is respectfully stated that the Petitioner/Managing committee has got every power to appoint Mujawar to the Dargha in order to look after day to day affairs of the Dargah and the function assigned to him from time to time, which is evident from: a. Article IX-Duties of the Executive committee-of the scheme of Management/Bye laws of the Dargha of the year 1975. b. Proceedings of Managing Committee. c. Clarification letter dated 18.06.2020 issued by Chief Executive officer, Karnataka State Board of Wakf, Bangalore to the Police Inspector, Cottonpet Police station. d. By virtue of section 2(32) of Karnataka Waqf Rules 2017 e. By virtue of order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Wakf Tribunal in Application No.6/2016. The clarification letter dated 18.06.2020 issued by the CEO Wakf board addressing to Police Inspector Cottonpet Police station is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.8. ? The Petitioner is herewith producing the copy of the resolution passed by the Managing committee authorizing its secretary to file the present Petition. The clarification letter dated 18.06.2020 issued by the CEO Wakf board addressing to Police Inspector Cottonpet Police station is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.8. ? The Petitioner is herewith producing the copy of the resolution passed by the Managing committee authorizing its secretary to file the present Petition. The copy of the resolution is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO. 9. 6. Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: “The application filed by applicant under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 is hereby allowed. The impugned resolution dated 16.02.2012 and 20.01.2013 vide Annexure A and B respectively are hereby set aside.” 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no notice to R.Nisar Ahmed and action has been taken against the dead person is per se incorrect inasmuch as the resolution was in the year 2012 and R.Nisar Ahmed died on 21.03.2020. 8. He would also contend that resolution was duly passed after exercising necessary powers and following all necessary procedure and therefore, the impugned order is per se incorrect and sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. It is also his contention that the application filed before the Tribunal under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act was per se time barred and it was not properly considered by the Tribunal and thus, impugned order is illegal. 10. He would further contend that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this revision being the applicants before the Tribunal had no locus to challenge the resolution as R.Nisar Ahmed himself did not challenge the said resolution in his lifetime which has been ignored by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order by contending that learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has taken into consideration not only the rival contentions of the parties but also the effect of the civil suits and the order that has been suffered by the revision petitioner seeking police protection in respect of the subject matter of the Dargah and also noted that there was no proper service of notice to R.Nisar Ahmed before passing the impugned resolution and rightly allowed the application and thus, revision petition needs to be dismissed. 12. 12. He would also point out that based on the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner in WP No.15031/2020 connected with WP No.17129/2017, WP No.9531/2022 and WP No.15156/2022, the inter se dispute if any between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the revision petitioner stood solved and a scheme was sought to be implemented and the writ petition stood disposed of with a direction to implement the scheme. Same is approved by respondent No.3 and as such, the present revision petition has rendered infructuous. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 14. In reply, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the scheme is not yet approved and therefore, the revision petition needs to be disposed of on merits. 15. Taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, irrespective of the earlier dispute that has arisen with regard to the passing of the resolution with notice to late R.Nisar Ahmed earlier Sajjadanasheen or not, in view of the orders passed in aforesaid writ petitions, the dispute inter se between the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 was resolved and a scheme has been proposed and writ petitions stood disposed of. 16. Pertinently, the writ petitions were filed by the revision petitioner and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate in their stand. 17. Whether the scheme is approved as is contented by learned counsel for the respondents or not or whether the scheme is yet to be approved, fact remains that the earlier dispute with regard to the hereditary Sajjadanasheen post and Mujawar is now as per the scheme which needs to be implemented if not already implemented. 18. At any rate, in view of the scheme, the grounds urged in the revision petition challenging the order of the Tribunal needs no interference. 19. Accordingly, following: ORDER: Revision petition is dismissed.