ORDER S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. The dispute pertains to appointment of Mutwalli in a waqf Allal Aulad No. 7A of district Rae.Bareli. One Mohd. Ishaq Ali was the last Mutwalli of the said waqf. He died on 30-3-1978. The petitioner Abdul Saeed Khan claiming himself to be a son of late Mohd. Ishaq Ali born from Mst. Habia Begum, staked his claim for the Tauliyat-ship of the said waqf. Another person namely Imtiyaz Khan born from Mst. Shamshun Nisa, who was the daugher of Mst. Raj Kunwar alias Noor Jahan alleged to be the wife of Mohd. Ishaq Khan also stated his claim for the Tauliyat-ship. Two brothers namely Tasewwar Khan and Iqbal Khan have surrendered their rights in favour of Imtiaz Ali Khan for the Tauliyatship of the said waqf. Abdul Saeed Khan disputed the claim of Imtiaz Ali Khan on the ground that Mst. Raj Kunwar was not the legally wedded wife of Mohd. Ishaq but she was only a concubine. According to Abdul Saeed Khan, Shamsun Nisa was not the daughter of Mohd. Ishaq and, therefore, Imtiaz Ali Khan had no right to be appointed as Mutwalli of the waqf in question. Abdul Saeed Khan Mutawalli of the waqf in question. Abdul Saeed Khan alleged that Shamsun Nissa was the daughter of somebody else and had come with Raj Kumar Kunwar when she started living with Mohd. Ishaq Khan.
Question as to who shall have preferential right for the Taullyat-ship of the waqf in question was considered by the Committee appointed by the Board, wherein main dispute was, as to whether Mst. Raj Kunwar was the wife of Mohd. Ishaq or not and whether Shamsun Nisa was the daughter of Mohd. Ishaq Khan or not. Legal Committee of the respondent 1 found itself in agreement with the stand of the counsel of Imtiaz Khan that MSI. Raj Kunwar alias Noor Jahan was the wife of Mohd. Ishaq Khan and Mst. Shamshun Nisa was the daughter of Mohd. Ishaq Khan. While doing so, the legal committee also considered the judgment passed in regular suit No. 128 of 1964, wherein the trial Court had recorded the finding on the point of controversy that Smt. Shamshunnisa was the daugher of Mst. Raj Kunwar born from the wed-lock of Mohd. Ishaq Khan. Against the said judgment an appeal was preferred by Mohd. Ishaq Khan, which was dismissed.
2. Sri Arif Mohd. Khan, counsel appearing for the petitioner laid great emphasis that the alleged decision of the legal committee constituted by the Board, was only in the nature of a report or recommendation, as no positive order was passed in favour of Imtiaz Khan for his appointment as Mutwalli, but the Secretary, U.P. Muslim Waqf has wrongly issued the deed of Tauliyat in favour of Sri Imtiaz Khan.
3. We have very minutely scrutinized the decision of the said committee, wherein it was indicated that claimant No. 2 Abdul Saeed Khan will have no preferntial claim or right over claimant real, Imtiaz Ali Khan. No other point was pressed before the Committee and in the opinion of the legal committee, Imtiaz Ali Khan was held to be entitled for his appointment as Mutwalli in the said waqf. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the secretary of the Board has issued the Sanad Tauliyat.
4. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that it is only a report, is misconceived because the committee has already accepted the claim of Imtiaz Ali Khan for the appointment of Mutwalli. Issuance of Tauliyat-ship was the ministerial act which was carried on by the Secretary. If we accept the argument of Mr. Mohd, Arif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only in the nature of a report or the recommendation and the Board has not passed any positive order in favour of Imtiaz Ali Khan for his appointment as Mutwalli of the waqf in question, even then the case of the petitioner would not improve, because in that eventuality, petitioner ought to have waited for the decision of the Board and should not have filed this writ petition.
5. The other contention of Mohd. Arif Khan, counsel for the petitioner, is also not tenable for the reason that the Board in its resolution held on 24-3-1979, resolved that all powers in respect of appointment or removal of the Mutwalli be delegated to the said legal committee in exercise of the powers under S. 20 of the Act as amended till that date, and the Committee has exercised those powers in respect of the cases which were entrusted to the President. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit that in pursuance of the resolution passed, President entrusted the matter to legal Committee for a decision. Accused to the said resolution, Committee was delegated with all the powers vested into respondent No. I as provided under S. 20 of the Act. As the power was rightly delegated, the legal committee was empowered to pass orders regarding the appointment or removal of the Mutwalli, which the Committee did in exercise of the power delegated to it.
6. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan furthersubmitt-ed that delegation of powers to the- said Committee was beyond the scope and ambit of S. 20 of the Act which reads as under :--
"Subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be specified, the Board may delegate to the President or to the Secretary or any other servant of the Board or to any member such of its powers and duties under this Act, as it may deem necessary, may likewise, withdraw any such delegation."
7. Admittedly, the Board has the power to delegate its powers to the President or to the Secretary or any other servant of the Board or to any member, The Board delegated its authority to the said Committee who pass such an order. The word any member, does not mean only one member. It could be a committee consisting of members of the Board to pass orders on the basis of the delegation. Hence, the plea which has been raised by Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan the delegation was not proper, is totally misconceived.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the statement of Mohd. Abdul Rauf in regular suit No. 128 of 1964 and Mohd. Ishaq Khan, which he made in certain proceedings under Section 48 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel stated that a perusal of the statement would indicate that Smt. Shamshun Nisa was not all daughter of Mst. Rankunwar but she came along with Smt. Raj Kunwar, when Mohd. Ishaq Khan kept Mast. Raj Kunwar as concubine.
9. We have very minutely gone into the averments made in the writ petition. There is no whisper in the writ petition as to whether any evidence was filed before the legal committee, which it ignored to consider or was not at all considered or the legal committee while appreciating any such evidence acted perversely. The question as to whether Mst. Raj Kunwar alias Noor Jahan was the legitimate wife of Mhod. Imtiaz Khan and was married to him in accordance with Hanafi Law was subject-matter of the dispute in regular suit No. 128 of 1964. A finding has been recorded by learned Munsif while deciding issue No. 10 that Mst. Raj Kunwar was the legally wedded wife of Mohd. Ishaqm Khan and Shashunnisa was the daughter of Mst. Raj Kunwar. Besides the above, the Board appreciated the evidence brought on record with the help of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Imtiz Khan. The committee agreed with the stand of Mohd. Iqbal, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of Imtiaz Khan, that Mst. Raj Kunwar was the wife of Mohd. Imtiaz Khan and Mst. Bhamshunnisa was the daughter of Moham-mad Ishaq Khan. The Board or its Committee while dealing with such matters is not expected to act in a manner, in which the Courts generally do. The Board, is in the naturt of statutory tribunal or a quasi-judicial Tribunal constituted under the Act and if the Board has arrived to a conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Mst. Raj Kunwar was the wife of Mohammad Ishaq and Smt. Shamshunnisa was the daughter of Mohammad Ishaq, this Court cannot sit over the finding of fact recorded by the Board or its committee particularly when no such challenge was made in the writ petition. We arc of the view that the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court.
10. It may be said that the appointment of Mohammad Imtiaz Ali Khan amounted to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Mutwalli. In such a situation, the petitioner might have preferred the matter to the Tribunal under Section 55 of the Act, but it was not done. Such disputed question of facts, which are involved in this writ petition, could very well be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, which is vested with the power of Civil Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. Petition dismissed.