Serious Breach of Court's order

[S. Insaf]

Serious breach of M.P. Wakf Tribunal's order resulting in Jail punishment

Dawat-e-Hadiya headed by Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin Saheb has committed a serious breach / violation of Madhya Pradesh Wakf Tribunal order.

The Tribunal has issued notice to Dawat-e-Hadiya and M.P. Wakf Board for reply on breach of Injunction. The said notice sent by the Registered post has been returned by Syedna Sahab to the Tribunal office without assigning any reason. Which means it is deliberately avoiding the service of the Court summons. In this breach case (in which notice is sent to Syedna Sahab) filed before the Tribunal, three months Jail is the only punishment under order 39 rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.

Up to 50th Bohra Dais, they were poor and indebted. But 51st Dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb took forceful control of the community's wealth and properties by claiming the ownership of the community properties including masjids. He also claimed that Dai is not accountable to anyone accept the hidden Imam. Though the court of law out rightly rejected these claims he continued his absolute control on the community and remained non-accountable and went on establishing his powerful Financial Empire.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Today the Bohra religious establishment is one of the most corrupt establishments.
However the outcome of the mass revolt in Udaipur in 1972 was quite freighting for him as he lost the control over community properties in Udaipur.
Though so far he and his late father had claimed that they are above the law of the land and there is no concept of permanent irrevocable charity trust in Dawoodi Bohra Community, Syedna Burhanuddin Saheb found it safe to submit to the law of the land and abide by trust and Wakf laws.
But he still wanted to maintain his absolute control over the properties and his superiority over Charity Commissioners and Wakf Boards. He soon found out some corrupt elements in Charity Commissioner's offices and Wakf Boards, and in 1973 / 74 he invited them, one by one at his Saifee Mahal in Bombay, bribed them and made them sign on his own drafted agreements. A new word "Sole-Trustee" was coined though there is no concept of Sole-Trustee in the Charity and Wakf laws. How can one person be the Sole-Trustee of several properties all over the country and the world?
By doing so he on one side wanted to project himself as 'Law-abiding' and on the other side wanted to play with law of the land. So the clauses like "The Wakf Board will not interfere in the matters of Bohra Wakaf (Auqaf) without due permission of the Syedna Saheb" were deliberately introduced in the agreements in order to enjoy his ownership.

On 15 March 1974 an agreement was signed between representatives of Syedna Saheb and the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board. Syedna Saheb was declared as Sole-Trustee and a fixed amount of Rs. 18,000 was agreed to be annually paid by Syedna Saheb.
The officials in Wakf boards were blinded by money but the reformist Bohras could see through the fraud. In their Fist World Conference they brought this fraud to notice of Wakf Boards, state governments and public.

Therefore on 21 October 1979 Syedna Saheb increased the amount from Rs. 18,000 to 30,000.
The reformist Bohras kept on raising this issue again and again in their World Conferences. Therefore in July 2000 the amount was further increased to 2,52,000.

Due to rampant corruption in the Wakf Boards nothing happened immediately.

But when on 9-1-2006 Mr. Jabbar Dhakwala, an honest and upright person became Administrator of the Board, he came across the resolutions passed in the reformist world conference and investigated the matter. He found that the Agreement entered with the representatives of Sayedna Saheb in 1973 is in violation of the Provisions of Wakf Act. There is no provision in the Act to exempt any one for NOT getting the accounts audited and NOT submitting it to the Board. He also found that the M. P. Wakf Board is being cheated of crores of rupees as Syedna is paying just peanut whereas the income from the Shia Dawoodi Bohra Wakf properties in Madhya Pradesh was running in Crores. He cancelled the 1974 agreement and rejected the Syedna Saheb's claim of "Sole-Trusteeship". Syedna Saheb was informed by letters dated 1st Feb. 2007 and 2nd June 2007. Because according to 1974 agreement, the Net Annual Contribution paid on behalf of Sayedna Saheb to the Board was just eyewash. Syedna collects crore of rupees yearly by imposing various taxes to get their Nikah, burial and other rituals performed. Even to enter in Bohra masjids for prayers and Bohra Dargahs for ziyarat. It is because the Wakf Board has made him owner of the Wakf properties and Bohras have to pay him to make use of these properties.
Mr. Jabbar Dhakwala issued an order to investigate this matter under section 44, 46 and 47 of Wakf Act and also get the actual details of Shia Dawoodi Bohra Jamat's properties in the Madhya Pradesh, their valuation, Net Annual Income from them, their audited accounts and then based on these details calculate the actual Annual Contribution required to be paid by Dawat-e-Hadiya. The moment Mr. Jabbar Dhakwala sent a notice to Syedna Saheb he immediately increased Net Annual Contribution from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 2,52,000 yearly.``

I, Saifuddin Insaf along with Janab Abdullah Bhai Athar, had filed a case through Advocate Shahnawaz Khan, in the M.P. Wakf Tribunal praying that the Wakf Board should treat Syedna as Mutawalli (care-taker) and not as Sole-Trustee and most importantly the Board should take back the Bohra Wakf properties from Syedna's control.

There are 325 Wakf properties of Dawoodi Bohra Community in Madhya Pradesh. Since these properties are in absolute control of Syedna Saheb:-
1) The accounts of these Wakf properties are neither audited nor submitted to the Board,
2) The actual income from these properties are not made public,
3) Dawoodi Bohras all over the world are the beneficiaries of these Wakf properties and they entitle to make use of them without restriction. But due to introduction of compulsory e-Jamat Cards and restriction of dress-code many members of the community are refused entry even in masjids and graveyards.

The reformists have filed a suit No.13/2008 before Hon. MP State Wakf Tribunal under section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and application under section 94 and Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was also filed seeking stay. The above case is also pending before Hon. High Court of Madhya Pradesh for disposal of the Civil Revision No.354/2008. The main case No.13/2008 is also pending before Hon. MP State Wakf Tribunal.

On 24/5/2008 the Hon. Court after hearing both the parties passed the following order to maintain status quo, pending further orders;

"Both the parties to maintain status quo in the case till further orders"
This status quo is to be maintained by both the parties i.e. Plaintiff and the Defendants MP Wakf Board and Syedna Sahab till further .
The order for maintaining the status quo is still in operation, it has not been vacated by the court and during the operation of the above order the Wakf Board or Dawat-e-Hadiya were not allowed to enter in any agreement and change the position.

This is evident from a letter CH/146/2010 dated 25th June 2010 written by Newly elected Chairman of M.P. Wakf Board, Mr. Ghufran Azam to Syedna Mohd. Burhanuddin Saheb. While the Tribunal has ordered to maintain Status quo he has demanded Rs. 15 lakhs Annual Chand Nigrani from Syedna Saheb, without obtaining the accounts from him. By this act, both the M.P. Wakf Board and Syedna have intentionally disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal.

This clearly amounts to the breach of the orders of the Court. As per the law (the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Order 39 Rule 2A) sending them to the civil prison is the only punishment.

In December 2008 our advocate Janab Shahnawaz Khan had warned the newly elected Wakf board members and the chairman Janab Ghufran Azam the Sayedna Saheb is violating Wakf Act provisions. Also he had shown that the Board's annual income can be increased to more than Rupees Two Crores if it gets audited the accounts of Shia Dawoodi Bohra Wakf properties in Madhya Pradesh. He had pointed out that since last 25 years after the Board has signed an Agreement with Dawoodi Bohra priesthood it is violating the Wakf Act's clauses 44, 46 and 47.

Why is the M. P. Wakf Board's income so low when the income from the Shia Dawoodi Bohra Wakf properties in Madhya Pradesh runs in Crores?
Ever since he is exercising his absolute control over the Bohra Graveyards, Dargah, masjids etc. he has become the sole owner of Wakf properties of the Dawoodi Bohra Community instead of remaining as Mutawalli. And he has started imposing taxes as per his will on the community members for making use of these Wakf properties. To the extent that he exercises his absolute control even on the mosques and the graveyards of the community. He even imposes tax for offering prayers in the mosque and burial of dead in Bohra graveyards. No Bohra can pray or / and bury dead without paying taxes and obtaining his permission. Sayedna increases taxes many fold every year. The Sayedna Saheb's establishment collects Crores of rupees from these Wakf properties but the Wakf Board is paid a fixed negligible sum as annual contribution to Board. Why is this freedom given only to Dawoodi Bohra head?, he had rightly questioned. In the name of burial the Sayedna Saheb's establishment is blackmailing the entire community.
He had said that the Sayedna Saheb's representatives are not working as per the provisions in the Wakf Act sections 44, 46, 47. The accounts of more than 325 Wakf properties in M.P. are neither audited nor submitted to the Board. Sayedna is also hiding the actual income from these properties.
It is therefore necessary that the M. P. Wakf Board should asses the actual income of all Wakf properties in M. P. Most importantly the Board should take back them from Sayedna's control.

It is shocking how people like Ghufran Azam can get corrupted when they come in contact of corrupt establishment!

[Kaka Akela]

Mr. S. Insaf:
Thanks for this info, but it is not much comfort because this is only one state. Can this effort be duplicated in other states, Most likely Maharashtra & Gujrat will be bigger bonanza if followed through along this same lines.
May Allah help you, us and all the rest of the momeneen to get rid of the corruption amongst us.

[S. Insaf]

Let me tell you this. On the very first hearing Syedna Saheb’s advocate argued that Applicant Mr. Saifuddin Insaf is from Mumbai and hence he has no write to interfere in the Wakf of Madhya Pradesh (M.P.).
I was born and brought up at Khandwa in M.P. But I did not argue on that ground.
My argument was that Syedna Saheb was born at Surat, he stays in Mumbai. If he can become a party in the matters of Madhya Pradesh why I can not?

What I want to stress is that we Dawoodi Bohras from both sides of the divide are the beneficiaries of all Charity and Wakf Dawoodi Bohra properties of the world (this fact has been accepted by Syedna Saheb) and hence any Dawoodi Bohra has right to challenge the misuse of the Charity and Wakf Dawoodi Bohra properties. For example he or she may be staying in Udaipur but he can challenge misuse properties in M.P., Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhara Pradesh etc.
For local people it is convenient as they can assess the properties and appear for the cases more easily.
Today Syedna Saheb in the pretext of 'Sole-Trustee" has in fact become the "Sole-Beneficiary" of Bohras' properties all over the world.

[blue]

Mr. jabbar dhakwala i.a.s. is no more . he was killed in an accident two years ago , Ofcourse he was an honest officer. he was also collector of badwani district.

[labbaikyaHussain]

you think your case can send syedna in jail? thats a good joke

[master.b00t]

ahi nahi toh , khuda na ghar ma case chalse. syedna is gunehgaar by his bad hold policies.

[ghulam muhammed]

Waqf Bill 2010 blatantly ignores vital Sachar recommendations

New Delhi: The Central government is planning a series of changes in the way Waqf properties are managed across Indian through the Waqf Bill 2010, an amendment of The Waqf Act, 1995. The Bill is at present with the select committee of Rajya Sabha. Among other things the bill proposes is the constitution of a Waqf Development Agency which could use the earnings from the Waqf for the development schemes of Muslims. The Bill also proposes mandatory registration of Waqf properties. According to a parliamentary report, they can generate over Rs 10,000 crore in potential revenue.

But there is a considerable amount of skepticism about and anger over the bill among the Muslim civil society organizations. They claim that they were not consulted when the draft of the Bill was being prepared. They also recommend a few amendments in the current draft of the Bill saying that if passed in its current form, the Bill could do “irreparable” harm to the interests of the Muslim community. Some have gone to the extent of calling it as a “conspiracy” against the community.

While framing the Waqf Bill 2010, Mahmood says, the Ministry of Minority Affairs has provided that where the line of succession of Mutawalli (person responsible for a certain Waqf property) fails, the income of the waqf shall be spent for education, development and welfare of the community.

However, the word ‘community’ has not been defined anywhere in the proposed Bill or the existing Waqf Act of 1995. Now Mahmood argues that, this kind of lacuna leaves scope for the judiciary to dilute the meanings of the word ‘community’.

So Mahmood, who was also the PM’s appointed Officer on Special Duty to the Sachar Committee, recommends that the word ‘community’ must be replaced in the Waqf Bill 2010 by the phrase “Muslim Community of India”. Otherwise, the waqf properties, in addition to being widely encroached, shall no longer be available for Muslim welfare, he argues.

The third most important point, argues Mahmood, the definition of the word ‘encroacher’ as proposed by Sachar Committee has also been watered down by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. A parliamentary report says of the 4 lakh hectares of wakf property, nearly 3 lakh remain encroached, often by government entities.

http://twocircles.net/2011may05/waqf_bi ... tions.html

[ghulam muhammed]

you think your case can send syedna in jail? thats a good joke

You think only the dai can proclaim 'baarat' and no one else can ? thats a good joke . But sadly for you and your likes, the saudi govt proclaimed 'baarat' on the dai due to which he couldnt visit the holiest cities for muslims for a good 20 years.

[S. Insaf]

Brother labbaikyaHussain
You have asked:

you think your case can send syedna in jail?

I am reproducing here what Justice Martine had said in 1917 in Chandabhoy Galla Case:-

In 1917 Mullaji Saheb (then the Dawoodi Bohra Dais were called Mullaji or Bade Mullaji and Not Syedna, Dai-ul-Mutlaq or His Holiness.) had claimed during the trial of Chandabhoy Galla Case that “if I am in fact treated as ‘trustee’ and made ‘accountable’, the Mohammedan religion would be at an end. I am the absolute owner (malik or dhani) of the community’s properties including mosques.”

Judge Martin observed that “The fact that such restraints exist and apply to all citizens alike, it is not a slur upon the honest citizens.
Giving an example he further said: “It is unthinkable that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, would commit a Criminal Offence. But he is subject to the Criminal Law all the same, and this fact involves no slur. So, too, in theory the Mullaji Saheb is amenable to the Criminal and Civil law of this country, though it is unthinkable that he would commit any offence.”
He further said that: The foundation of the law of trusts is that the Trustee is one who is trusted. Hence the greater the trust, the more unthinkable does it become that the trustee will violet it. And yet the law has to impose restraints on the guilty or negligent trustee and give its assistance to any honest trustee or the beneficiary of the trust who requires it. In short the test of a trust is not whether the alleged trustee can ever commit a breach of the trust, which is what the defendant Mullaji Saheb’s contention in effect amounts to.”

[Ala maqaam]

you think your case can send syedna in jail? thats a good joke

You think only the dai can proclaim 'baarat' and no one else can ? thats a good joke . But sadly for you and your likes, the saudi govt proclaimed 'baarat' on the dai due to which he couldnt visit the holiest cities for muslims for a good 20 years.

even Muhammed(s) was bycott by kafir of mecca,wahabis are no better then kafir,so no wonder if the ban DAI of Imam uz zamaan.

[Muslim First]

Labbaik is back with another nick.

[anajmi]

009.028
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

The Quran prevents the pagans from entering the Sacred Mosque. So either the Dai behaved like a pagan for 20 years, or the Quran is wrong because as per Ala the wahhabis are kafirs and are in the Sacred Mosque.

[Muslim First]

so no wonder if the ban DAI of Imam uz zamaan.

Who is Imam uz zamaan?
Does Qur'an or Prophet mentions anywhere that there will be Imam after him let alone Imam uz zamaan!
Clear proof no goobly gook.
What authority he has to appoint DAI?
Why is he hiding?

[ghulam muhammed]

,so no wonder if the ban DAI of Imam uz zamaan.

Even Aga Khan says that, in fact he goes a step further and claims to be the Imam himself. The Qadiyanis go still further, according to them, their leader is a Prophet !!!! So anyone can make tall claims as per his whims and fancies depending upon the brainwashing of his followers, what matters is the impeccable qualities of the claimant which is totally absent in the dai.