ABDUL RAIS AND ORS. versus MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ABDUL RAIS AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD AND ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, J.I.] 
B 
Wakf Act, 1954-Sections 6 and 5-Dispute regarding wakfs-Limitation 
to file suits-Word "therein" appearing in sub-section(/) of S.6-Meaning 
and construction of-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideratio11 in C 
view of the earlier decisio11s of this Court on this aspect, the factual position 
and reliefs sought for in the instant suit-Wakf Act, 1995-Section 83(a), 
proviso. 
.. 
Appellants filed application before the State Wakf Tribunal seeking 
declaration that the suit property specified in the Official Gazette (wakf D 
list) was not a wakf property, but exclusively belonged to them. State Wakf 
Board resisted the claim contending that the applicants had no title and 
that in any event the application was barred by time, being not filed within 
one year from the date of publication in the Official Gazette as 
contemplated under S.6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which was in force at the E 
relevant time. The Tribunal allowed the application over-ruling the 
objections raised by the Wakf Board. Wakf Board filed revision application 
in terms of proviso to Section 83(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995 which in the 
meanwhile had been enacted. High Court held that the application filed 
by the Appellants before the State Wakf Tribunal was barred by time. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the High Court erred 
, 
in holding that the application made by Appellants before the Tribunal 
was barred by time, as S.6 had no application to the facts of the present 
case. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the 
Wakf Act, 1954 requires that a civil suit shall be filed within <:me year from 
the date of the publication of the notification issued under sub-section (2) 
of Section 5. But the operative words in sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the 
F 
G 
H 
, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
j2005J I S.C.R . 
... 
A Act are "the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested 
'¥ 
therein". The requirement to file a civil suit within one year of the 
notification under the Act as mentioned in the first proviso to Section 6(1) 
of the Act is in connection with any dispute between the Wakf Board on 
the one hand and the mutawalli of the wakf on the other or any person 
B 
interested therein. The expression "therein" means "interested" in the 
wakf as distinct from interested in the property i.e. a third party. 
14-F, H; 5-A-BJ 
Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat@ Gram Sabha, 120001 2 SCC 
121; Sayyed Ali'" A.P. Wakf Board, 119981 2 SCC 642; Board of Muslim 
c Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors., 1197912 SCC 468 and Siraj-ul-
Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf U.P., AIR (1959) SC 198, relied 
on. 
1.2. The effect of the relief sought for in the suit and the law laid 
down by this Court have to be kept in view. Further none was present on 
D behalf of the Wakf Board at the time of hearing of the revision application 
by the High Court. In the aforesaid background it is appropriate to remit 
the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration. 15-G-H; 6-AI 
~ 
Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat@ Gram Sabha, 120001 2 SCC 
121; Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors., 119791· 2 
E SCC 468 and Siraj-u/-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf U.P., AIR 
(1959) SC 198, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4. 7 .2003 of the Madhya Pradesh 
F High Court at Indore in C.R. No. 954 of 2000. 
S.K. Gambhir, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha and Anil 
r 
K. Chopra for the Appellants. 
B.S. Banthia and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
·h 
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendere~ by a learned 
Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, holding that 
H the petition filed by 1he appellants before the Madhya Pradesh State Wakf 
/\13DlJL R/\IS v. M.P. W/\KF BOARD [P/\SAYAT . .I.] 
3 
Tribunal, Bhopal (in short the 'Tribunal') was barred by time. 
A 
Factual position sans unnecessary details is as follows: 
On 27.12.1996, appellants filed an application before the Tribunal 
seeking a declaration that the suit property specified in Official Gazette (Wakf 
List) dated 13.9.1985 is in fact not a wakf property, but the said p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.