# Abbas Ansari v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1631
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10920 of 2023
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abbas-ansari-v-state-of-u-p-52007
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 387, 222, 186,
506, 201, 120-B, 195-A & 34 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Sections 7, 8 & 13 - Prisons Act, 1894 -
Section 42 (b) & 54 - Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 - Section 7 -
Applicant who is a member of the
Legislative Assembly is a responsible
representative of the public and must
maintain a higher standard of conduct
than other common individuals - Not
seen as lawbreakers - Misuse of law
procedures due to power - Not entitled
to bail under these circumstances.
(Para - 22,32,33,34)

Applicant - Legislative Assembly Member and
National Level Rifle Shooter - Criminal history of
ten cases - expected higher standard of conduct
- earned laurels for country - ingraining discipline
and respect for rules - law maker seen as a law
breaker - applicant's complicity evident from
CCTV
footage
and
witness
statements
-
indicating a person with knowledge of his jail stay
and his wife's meetings - recovery of two mobile
phones from wife of applicant - who couldn't
access the jail premises unless authorities turned
a blind eye. (Para - 32,33)

HELD:- Applicant and his wife are accused of
dereliction of duty and violating rules at the
behest of jail authorities. Allegations may not be
solely monetary, but also based on the
applicant's background and family antecedents.
Bail rejected for applicant due to lack of evidence
and witness examinations. Trial court ordered to
expedite trial. (Para - 34)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
1631

c) But, if, the very same three
persons in illustration b) had inherited an
agricultural holding and one of the them
was desirous of disposing of his or her
interest in the holding, the principles of
Section 22 of the Act would step in.

The reason is clear. The source of
title or interest of any of the heirs in the third
illustration, is purely through the succession
which is recognized in terms of the
provisions of the Act. Since the right or
interest itself is conferred by the provisions
of the Act, the manner in which said right
can be exercised has also been specified in
the very same legislation.

Therefore,
the
content
of
preferential right cannot be disassociated in
the present case from the principles of
succession. They are both part of the same
concept.

20. When the Parliament thought
of conferring the rights of succession in
respect of various properties including
agricultural holdings, it put a qualification
on the right to transfer to an outsider and
gave preferential rights to the other heirs
with a designed object. Under the Shastrik
Law, the interest of a coparcener would
devolve by principles of survivorship to
which an exception was made by virtue of
Section 6 of the Act. If the conditions
stipulated in Section 6 were satisfied, the
devolution of such interest of the deceased
would not go by survivorship but in
accordance with the provisions of Act. Since
the right itself in certain cases was created
for the first time by the provisions of the Act,
it was though fit to put a qualification so that
the properties belonging to the family would
be held within the family, to the extent
possible and no outsider would easily be
planted in the family properties. In our view,
it is with this objective that a preferential
right was conferred upon the remaining
heirs, in case any of the heirs was desirous
of transferring his interest in the property
that he received by way of succession under
the Act."

36. In view of the above exposition of
law and in view of what we have discussed
above in this judgment, we hold sub-Section
(3) of Section 169 of Act of 1950, in so far
as it requires a Will to be compulsorily
registered, to be repugnant to Section 17
read with Section 40 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 and hence we hold
the amendment of Section 169(3) of the
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act to that extent void.

37. Thus, our answer, to the question
framed, is that sub-Section (3) of Section
169 having been declared as void to the
extent it provides for registration of Will, the
Wills in State of Uttar Pradesh are not
required to be registered and a Will for its
non registration will not be void whether
before or after the U.P. Amendment Act,
2004.

38. Let petition be laid before the
Bench concerned for decision on merits of
the case, accordingly.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1631
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10920 of
2023

Abbas Ansari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pranjal Krishna, Arun Sinha, Pranjal Krishna,
Siddhartha Sinha

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 387, 222, 186,
506, 201, 120-B, 195-A & 34 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Sections 7, 8 & 13 - Prisons Act, 1894 -
Section 42 (b) & 54 - Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 - Section 7 -
Applicant who is a member of the
Legislative Assembly is a responsible
representative of the public and must
maintain a higher standard of conduct
than other common individuals - Not
seen as lawbreakers - Misuse of law
procedures due to power - Not entitled
to bail under these circumstances.
(Para - 22,32,33,34)

Applicant - Legislative Assembly Member and
National Level Rifle Shooter - Criminal history of
ten cases - expected higher standard of conduct
- earned laurels for country - ingraining discipline
and respect for rules - law maker seen as a law
breaker - applicant's complicity evident from
CCTV
footage
and
witness
statements
-
indicating a person with knowledge of his jail stay
and his wife's meetings - recovery of two mobile
phones from wife of applicant - who couldn't
access the jail premises unless authorities turned
a blind eye. (Para - 32,33)

HELD:- Applicant and his wife are accused of
dereliction of duty and violating rules at the
behest of jail authorities. Allegations may not be
solely monetary, but also based on the
applicant's background and family antecedents.
Bail rejected for applicant due to lack of evidence
and witness examinations. Trial court ordered to
expedite trial. (Para - 34)

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Harjit Singh Vs Inderpreet Singh @ Inder &
anr., (2021) 19 SCC 355
2. Brijmani Devi Vs Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC
497

3. Munnilaxmi Vs Narendra Babu & anr. , 2023
SCC Online SC 1380

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. The applicant before this Court is a
sitting Member of Legislative Assembly
from Mau Assembly Seat no. 356. He has
been arraigned as an accused in Case Crime
No. 88 of 2023 under Sections 387, 222,
186, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A and 34 I.P.C.
and Sections 7, 8 and 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 42 (b), 54
of Prisons Act, 1894 and Section 7 of
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, P.S.
Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot
along with other named persons and some
other unknown persons.

2. However, a charge sheet bearing No.
1 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 has been filed
wherein the applicant has been charged
under Sections 387, 506, 201, 120-B, 195A, 186, 511 and 34 I.P.C. and Section 8 of
P.C. Act, 1988, Sections 42 (b) and Section
54 of Prisons Act and Section 7 of Criminal
Law Amendment Act as stated in para 5 of
the affidavit in support of the bail
application.

3. A supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the applicant on 24.04.2024 is
taken on record.

4. The genesis of the instant matter is
lodging of the First Information Report on
11.02.2023 at 04:20 hours stating that the
present applicant who is a member of the
Legislative Assembly was lodged in District
Jail, Chitrakoot. His wife for the past several
days has been visiting the applicant in the
Jail along with her driver and co-accused
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
1633
Niyaz. She is said to spend 3 to 4 hours
inside the Jail without any restrictions. The
applicant is alleged to have used the mobile
phones of his wife to threaten the witnesses
and officials who were connected with the
prosecution of the applicant. From the very
same mobile, the applicant is alleged to have
threatened various persons to extort money
and posse of men who are loyal to the
applicant would collect the money and bring
it to the applicant.

5. It has further been alleged that the
wife of the applicant frequently visited the
jail without complying with the formalities
and the prescribed restrictions and the
applicant was being provided all sorts of
benefits during his incarceration for which
the officials of the jail were paid both in cash
and kind. It is also alleged that the driver of
the applicant's wife namely Niyaz along
with the officials of the Jail were planning to
stage an escape the applicant from the Jail.

6. Upon the information received from
the informant, the District Magistrate and
the Superintendent of Police in civil clothes
and in a private vehicle made a surprise
inspection of the Jail. The applicant was not
found in his barrack rather he is said to be in
the room right adjacent to the room of the
Jail Superintendent along with his wife.
Upon opening and entering the said room,
the
District
Magistrate
and
the
Superintendent of Police found applicant's
wife but the applicant was not there.

7. The police personnel posted on the
Gate of the jail informed that the applicant
had moved from the said room to his barrack
a few minutes ago. However, the wife of the
applicant was searched and from her bag,
two mobile phones, certain ornaments, cash
of Rs. 21,000/- and foreign currency of 12
Riyals was recovered.

8. The police authorities required the
applicant's wife to give the passwords to
open
the
two
phones
which
were
confiscated, however, she did not cooperate
and rather gave incorrect passwords which
resulted in the two phones being locked.

9. It is further alleged that upon further
questioning, it was informed that the
applicant's wife along with the other
accused and police officials were planning
to stage an escape for the applicant. Certain
witnesses were threatened and in case if they
did not cooperate with the applicant i.e. if
they did not turn hostile, they were to be
eliminated.

10. It is also alleged that on the
applicant's instructions, his posse of loyalist
were to create an atmosphere of terror so
that the said alleged witnesses may not give
their testimony and they would abide by the
demands for money made by the applicant
as extortion money.

11. Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for
the applicant duly assisted by Sri Pranjal
Krishna has submitted that from the bare
perusal of the First Information Report, it
would primarily indicate that no offence has
been made out against the applicant. A
meaningful reading of the FIR would
indicate that primarily the allegations are
against the wife of the applicant and the
other co-accused Niyaz. Most of the other
co-accused are all police personnel or jail
authorities.

12. It has further been pointed out that
the police has already filed a charge sheet
and apparently no evidence could be
unearthed by which it could be remotely
suggest that the applicant was involved in
any sort of extortion. There has been no
evidence nor the call detail report could pin
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
point any call made by the applicant to any
witness whom it is alleged that the applicant
had threatened.

13. It is further pointed out that all the
co-accused including the wife of the
applicant have been enlarged on bail. The
bail orders of the co-accused Faraz,
Navneet,
Ashok,
Shahbaz,
Santosh,
Jagmohan, Chandrakala and Nikhat have
been placed on record as Annexure Nos.
RA-1 to RA-8 with the rejoinder affidavit
dated 08.11.2023.

14. Sri Sinha has further submitted that
the applicant has a criminal history of ten
cases and except for a case filed by the
Enforcement Directorate under Section 3/4
of the PMLA Act, 2002, in all the other
cases, the applicant has been enlarged on
bail including in the Case Crime no. 431 of
2019 wherein the bail has been granted by
the Apex Court on 18.03.2024 and the copy
of the said bail order has been brought on
record as Annexure no. SA-1 with the
supplementary affidavit dated 24.04.2024.

15. Sri Sinha has further urged that
merely because the applicant has a criminal
history does not necessarily means that he is
guilty of an offence especially in the case as
the present, at hand. The applicant apart
from being a member of the Legislative
Assembly is also a National Level Rifle
Shooter and has earned laurels for his
country. The applicant is in Jail since
11.02.2023 and in so far as the present case
emanating from Case Crime No. 88 of 2023
is concerned, it would reveal that certain
Sections which have been invoked in the
said case are primarily directed against the
public servants, however, in so far as the
present applicant is concerned, he has been
charged under Section 387, 506, 186 I.P.C
and they are all punishable with a maximum
sentence up to 7 years. In so far as Section
201, 120-B, 195-A, 511 and Section 34
I.P.C. is concerned, they can only be invoked
if any contingency mentioned in the said
section is proved in trial. In so far as the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act are concerned, they are punishable up to
7 years and Section 42 (b) and Section 54 of
the Prisons Act also carry a sentence up to
maximum two years.

16. On the aforesaid strength it is urged
that the charge sheet has already been filed
and it discloses a list of 46 proposed
witnesses out of which three are eyewitnesses, apart from the complainant, and
then there are various other formal and
police
witnesses.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances, the applicant is not in a
position either to tamper with the evidence
or influence any witness. In the said
circumstances, where the applicant has been
in Jail since 11.02.2023, the instant bail
application deserves to be allowed.

17.

Sri Vinod
Shahi,
learned
Additional Advocate General ably assisted
by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A has
opposed the bail application.

18. It has been submitted that during
the course of investigation, ample material
was collected which clearly indicated the
complicity of the Jail Authorities and Sri
Niyaz, the co-accused who is the driver of
the wife of the applicant who along with the
applicant and the other Jail Authorities were
staging an escape.

19. It has also been pointed out that the
CCTV footage has been recovered which
reveals that the wife of the applicant used to
visit the Jail after making entries in the
register and thereafter she had unrestricted
entry and access to the applicant lodged in
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
1635
the said jail including entering and exiting
the Jail without being searched. As per the
statement of the Deputy Jailor which was
recorded before the Magistrate it indicated
that the wife of the applicant and her driver
used to visit the Jail frequently without any
restriction and search, he attempted to raise
an objection against this practice and
conduct, but he was advised not to do so and
the applicant could get free access inside the
Jail roaming freely.

20. It has further been submitted that
the applicant yields enormous influence
both in terms of money power as well as
muscle power and under this circumstances,
the applicant, if released at this stage, would
influence the witnesses and this would turn
the tide of the course of trial which would
adversely impact the case of the prosecution.

21. The learned State Counsel has also
pointed out that in so far as the bail order of
Nikhat who is the wife of the applicant is
concerned, she has been enlarged on bail by
the Apex Court, as shall be evident by the
order itself, on the sole consideration of
being a nursing mother with one year old
child, apart from the fact that she did not
have any criminal history, however, the
same is not referable to the present
applicant.

22. It is also submitted that even
though the applicant may have been
enlarged on bail in various cases where he is
involved but the fact remains that in the
instant case, the applicant has misused the
process and the procedure established by
law on the strength of his sheer muscle and
money power. If the applicant being lodged
in Jail could yield influence over the Jail
Authorities, it can be well imagined how the
applicant would react once he is enlarged on
bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
applicant is not entitled for bail and in
support of their submissions, the learned
Additional Advocate General and Sri Verma
have relied upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh
Alias Inder and Another, (2021) 19 SCC
355 ; Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar,
(2022) 4 SCC 497 and Munnilaxmi Vs.
Narendra Babu and Another; 2023 SCC
Online SC 1380.

23. The Court has heard the learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the
material on record.

24. The facts on record as they unfold
is that the applicant does have a criminal
history of ten cases. The earliest case in
point of time is Case Crime no. 431 of 2019
and the instant case is the latest, thus,
indicating that between 2019 to 2023, the
applicant has been involved in ten cases
including one lodged under the PMLA Act.
It is also not disputed that in all the cases
except the case under the PMLA, the
applicant has been enlarged on bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court and
including in the case Crime No. 431 of 2019
by the Apex Court vide order dated
18.03.2024.

25. It is also a matter of fact that in the
instant case, apart from the applicant, five
other named persons and certain other
unnamed all have been enlarged on bail by
the coordinate Bench of this Court including
the other co-accused Nikhat who is the wife
of the applicant who has been enlarged by
the Apex Court by means of order dated
11.08.2023.

26. The record further reveals that a
Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of
its order dated 12.09.2023 had quashed the
charge sheet and the cognizance order
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
emanating from Criminal Case No. 11762 of
2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of
2022. It is also not disputed that the
applicant is a member of the Legislative
Assembly and a public figure.

27.

During
the
course
of
submissions, the State had referred to a
decision of a Coordinate Bench dated
20.11.2023
relating
to
the
present
applicant where he had sought bail in Case
Crime No. 431 of 2019 which came to be
rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court by means of order dated 20th
November, 2023 and it was urged that
certain
observations
made
by
the
Coordinate Bench while rejecting the said
bail application be considered for the
purposes of ascertaining the kind of
influence, the present applicant is capable
of exercising. In this regard, suffice to
state that in the said Case Crime No. 431
of 2019, the applicant has been enlarged
on bail by the Apex Court vide order dated
18.03.2024,
thus,
for
the
aforesaid
reasons, the said observations may not
have much persuading effect on the instant
case.

28. In Harjit Singh (Supra), the Apex
Court while considering the discretionary
power for grant of bail it referred to earlier
decisions and held that while considering
the grant of bail, the following factors need
to be kept in mind inter-alia are:-

(i) Whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to

believe that the accused had
committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail.

29. In the said case, what was noticed
by the Apex Court was that the said
applicant who had obtained bail after being
released committed another offence and
went to the Jail. The Apex Court noticed that
there was high possibility of threat and
danger to the life and safety of the appellant
before the Apex Court and in the aforesaid
circumstances, the antecedents were such
that the Apex Court while allowing the
appeal before it cancelled the bail.

30. In Brijmani (Supra), the Apex
Court once again considering the issue of
bail while dealing with the parameters
required to be noticed by the Court, it has
also noticed one more aspect while
exercising its discretion in paragraph nos. 37
and 38 as under:-

"37.
Ultimately,
the
court
considering an application for bail has to
exercise discretion in a judicious manner
and in accordance with the settled principles
of law having regard to the crime alleged to
be committed by the accused on the one
hand and ensuring purity of the trial of the
case on the other.

38.
Thus,
while
elaborating
reasons may not be assigned for grant of
bail, at the same time an order dehors
reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons
cannot result in grant of bail. It would be
only a non-speaking order which is an
5 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
1637
instance of violation of principles of natural
justice. In such a case the prosecution or the
informant has a right to assail the order
before a higher forum."

31. In Munnilaxmi (Supra), the Apex
Court in paragraph nos. 19 to 21 have held
as under:

"19. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions and
perused the material on record. It appears
that the sudden change of stance shown by
the most vital witnesses, namely, the family
members of the Deceased within 20 days of
their examination-in-chief cannot be a mere
coincidence. The Appellant has been
vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking
cancellation of bail given to Respondent No.
1. In her examination-in-chief, she has
specifically named Respondent No. 1 as the
main conspirator in the murder of her
daughter. Her sudden somersault, therefore,
cannot be easily detached from the chain of
allegations made against Respondent No. 1
in the past, of influencing the police, hiring
goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased,
and various attempts to take away her life.
All these accusations, for the limited
purpose of these proceedings, do suggest
that Respondent No. 1 has the potential to
influence the investigation or the witnesses
who were slated to depose against him. The
seriousness of allegations levelled against
Respondent No. 1 by the Deceased during
her lifetime or by the Appellant before the
Police or in this appeal ought to be
evaluated against this backdrop.

20. This Court undoubtedly has a
narrow scope of interference in an order
granting bail while exercising its power of
judicial review and will be invariably
reluctant to interfere in such order even if it
has a different opinion. The Courts often
grapple with balancing the most precious
right to liberty embodied in Article 21 of the
Constitution on one hand and the right of the
orderly society, which is committed to the
rule of law, on the other. The delicate
balance in the case of long incarceration is
drawn by releasing a suspect on bail on such
terms and conditions that will ensure that a
fair and free trial is not hampered. However,
if it is found that an undertrial has attempted
to misuse the concession of bail either by
influencing the witnesses or tampering with
the evidence or trying to flee from justice,
such person can be committed to custody by
withdrawing the concession of bail.

21. The Courts are under an
onerous duty to ensure that the criminal
justice system is vibrant and effective;
perpetrators of the crime do not go
unpunished; the witnesses are not under any
threat or influence to prevent them from
deposing truthfully and the victims of the
crime get their voices heard at every stage
of the proceedings."

32.

Considering
the
aforesaid
parameters and applying it to the facts of the
instant case, it would be seen that the
applicant is a Member of Legislative
Assembly. He is a person who holds a
responsible position and is a representative
of the public. His conduct has to be of a
higher standard, than other common persons
of the society. The members of the
Legislative Assembly are also the law
makers and in juxtaposition, it is not
appropriate that a law maker may be seen as
a law breaker. The applicant is a National
Level Rifle Shooter and as stated by the
learned counsel for the applicant, he has
earned laurels for his country and that being
so it would be explicitly clear that any sport
ingrains two habits in a person i.e. discipline
and the other is respect, for rules. A person
with the aforesaid backdrop knowing fully
well that he was lodged in the Jail and his
1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wife had been repeatedly meeting the
applicant and from the CCTV footage as
well as statements of the witnesses elicited
during investigation it prima facie reflects
towards the complicity of the applicant.

33. In normal circumstances and even
as per the law, the Jail Authorities do not and
could not grant such unrestricted access to
any person which has been allegedly
extended to the wife of the applicant,
obviously at the asking of the applicant. The
recovery of two mobile phones from the
wife of the applicant who was found in the
Jail premises in a room where she could not
have access unless the Jail Authorities
turned a blind eye.

34. Allegedly such dereliction of duty
/violation of rules and regulations at the
behest of the Jail Authorities, frequently and
selectively for the applicant and his wife
may not have been possible merely for
monetary gains. Considering the profile and
the background of the applicant and his
family antecedents, the allegations may not
be completely without substance. If such
influence whether for monetary reason or
under threat or coercion, if can be exercised
over police and prison authorities so
effectively who are basically enforcers of
law then it can be well imagined how the
applicant can effectively garner power to
influence any witness or to persuade him to
change his stand and this aspect if seen in
light of the fact that the evidence is yet to
commence. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances where the evidence is yet to
commence and there are eye-witnesses and
certain police authorities who were to be
examined, hence, at this stage, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the applicant
which is accordingly rejected. The Trial
Court shall expedite the trial and endevour
be made to decide the same as expeditiously
as possible. The prosecution State shall also
ensure that they do not seek any unnecessary
adjournments
for
examining
of
the
witnesses. It is also made clear that any
observations made by this Court in the
instant order may not be taken as an
expression of opinion on merits and the Trial
Court shall proceed strictly in accordance
with law.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1638
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1005292 of 2006

Ibney Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
Special Judge E.C. Act Faizabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Haider Abbas, Ishtiaq Ahmad,
M.M.Salam, Mohd.Yasin, Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava, S.A.A.Rizvi, S.M.Munish Jafri

(A) Muslim Waqf law - U. P. Muslim Waqf
Act, 1960 - Section 57-A - Recovery of
possession of waqf property from unauthorized occupants , Section 58 - Powers
of inquiring authority, The Waqf Act, 1995
- Section 112(3) - repeal and savings - U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act 1960 stood repealed
immediately upon enactment of the Waqf
Act, 1995 ( with effect from 01.01.1996) ,
after 01.01.1996, no action could be taken
or proceedings could be continued under
U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 , Section 83(2)
- alternative remedy before Tribunal - U.P.
Muslim Waqf Rules - Rule 5 - Controller's
order and subsequent proceedings are
without jurisdiction under Section 57-A of