Wakf property sanction on application upheld where settled practice allowed District Judge jurisdiction without a regular suit.

District Judges may sanction a mutwalli's proposed lease of wakf property on application where settled judicial practice has long permitted that course, and a regular suit is not required unless the governing law expressly says so. The Court treated analogous permission procedures under other property-related statutes as supporting that practice and declined to depart from it absent any contrary statutory mandate or compelling reason. The jurisdictional objection to the sanction order therefore failed, and the challenge to the order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to grant sanction for a mutwalli's proposed lease of wakf property on an application, instead of requiring a regular suit.

Analysis: The Court reviewed prior decisions on the powers exercised by District Judges in matters concerning wakf property and held that, in this Presidency, the settled practice had long been to entertain such requests by application. It noted that analogous permissions in other statutes affecting property of persons under disability were also routinely obtained on application, and declined to depart from the established course of the Court in the absence of any contrary statutory requirement or compelling reason.

Conclusion: The District Judge had jurisdiction to act on the application, and the objection that the order was without jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sanction order was rejected, and the petitioner obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the established judicial practice permits a District Judge to grant sanction for dealing with wakf property on application, the Court will not require a suit unless the governing law expressly mandates it.

---