Wakf tribunal

SANGAMESWARA RAO DHUPAM (Querist) 25 May 2012 This query is : Resolved
Whether Wakf Tribunal is a Civil Court or not? If it orders by restraining alienation of property belong to wakf can it be taken into account under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 for refusing registration.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 25 May 2012
Surender Singh Gill vs Haryana Wakf Board And Others on 27 February, 2012
Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2010

Date of decision : February 27, 2012

Surender Singh Gill

....Petitioner

versus

Haryana Wakf Board and others

....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. JS Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 None for the remaining respondents

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Plaintiff Surender Singh Gill by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 14.8.2010, Annexure P/2 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum- Wakf Tribunal, Hisar thereby holding that civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit and Wakf Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently ordering return of plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2010 -2- Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against Haryana Wakf Board and others. It is undisputed that the suit property is Wakf property. In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged lease of the suit property granted by Haryana Wakf Board to defendant nos. 3 to 7, inter alia, on the ground that earlier lease in favour of proforma respondents no. 8 and 9, who had surrendered the lease in favour of plaintifff, has not been validly terminated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Wakf, West Bengal vs. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr., 2011(2) MLJ 219 and judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Punjab Wakf Board, 2010(5) RCR (Civil) 940 contended that Wakf Tribunal only has jurisdiction to try the instant suit. On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2010(2) RCR (Rent) 266 contended that Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this suit and only civil court has jurisdiction to try the same.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) is concerned, the Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2010 -3- same does not hold the field in view of subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra). It has been categorically laid down in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra) that Wakf Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995 has jurisdiction to decide the dispute whether a particular property is Wakf property or not whereas jurisdiction of civil court in other matters is not barred. In the instant case, Wakf nature of the suit property is not in dispute. It is admitted case of both the parties that the suit property is Wakf property. Consequently, Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Only civil court has jurisdiction to try it. Judgment in the case of Anis Fatma Begum (supra) cited by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because in that case, even Wakf nature of the suit property was in dispute. To determine the same, Wakf Tribunal had the jurisdiction. In the instant case, however, it is admitted position that suit property is Wakf property. Consequently, civil court and not Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the suit.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the Wakf Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, impugned order of the Wakf Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2010 -4- Tribunal is consistent with the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (supra). Consequently, the instant revision petition is dismissed.

( L.N. Mittal )

February 27, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'