BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS, RAJASTHAN versus RADHA KRISHNA & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 24-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

148 
A 
BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKFS, RAJASTHAN 
v. 
RADHA KRISHNA & ORS. 
October 24, 1978 
B 
[JASWANT SINGH, R. S. PATHAK AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Wakfs Act, 1954-Ss. 4 and 6-Scope of-Con11nissio11er of Wakfs, if had 
jurisdiction to hold enquiry lvhether certain property was wakf property-
Failure of stranger to file suit lVithin time allowed by s. 6(1)-Special rule of 
limitation-If applicable to hin1-lnclusion of property in the list of ·wakfs-
C 
If final and conclusire. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1'o provide for the better administration and supervision of wakfsi the \Va-kfs 
Act 1954, sought to bring the management of wakfs under the supervision 
of the State. The Act envisages the appointment of a COmmissioner of Wakfs 
for the purpose of survey of wakf properties existing at the 
tin1e 
of 
the 
cornn1encement of the Act. 
The Commissioner is enjvined to submit his r':"port 
to the State Government after making such enquiries as he may consider 
necessary. 
While making enquiries the Com1nissioner is 
invested with 
powers ;.is are vested in a C.ivil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Section 6 of the Act provides that if any question arises as to 
wheihe1 
a 
particular property specified in the list of w2.kfs published under s. 5(2) was 
wakf property or not and such other related matters, the Board of l\fusl.im 
Wakfs or the Mutawalli of the wakf or 
any person interested therein 
may 
institute a suit in a Civil Court for decision of the question. 
llespondents 1 and 2 \vere n1ortgagee-purchasers of the property in dis-
pute, which was claimed to be \Vakf property. Respondent 
No. 
3 
in 
his 
application to the Commissioner of Wakfs alleged that the property in dispute 
being wakf property· its transfer by the mutawalli to the respondents· was 
invalid and prayed that the property be taken over by the \Vakf committee. 
While denying that the property in dispute was '\-Vakf property respondents 1 
and 2 contended before the Commissioner that he had no jurisdiction t.ci make 
an enquiry whether a particular property was \vakf property or not. 
The 
Commissioner rejected these contentions and submitted a report to the State 
Government. 
On receipt of the Commissioner's report the Board of Muslim 
Wakfs included the property in the list of wakfs in the St.ate. 
In the respondents' Writ Petition, the High Court held (i) that the juris-
diction of the Board of Wakfs was confined to matters of administration of 
the \vakfs and not to adjudication of questions of title and that the Act did 
not invest either the Board or t.he Commissioner with power to decide thC 
question \Vhether a property belonged to a ·wakf or not and therefore the 
Commissioner had no jurisdiction under s. 4(3) of the Act to 
enquir~ 
whether 01 not the property was wakf property and (ii) that the failure of a 
stranger to the wakf to institute a suit in a court of conlpetent jurisdiction 
within a period of one year on the question whet.her a particular property 
was \vakf property or not could not make the inclusion of such property 
in the list of wakfs final and conclusive. 
• 
t 
• 
• 
• 
• • 
MUSLIM WAKFS v. RADHA KRISHNA (Sen, J.) 
149 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on ·behalf of the appellants that 
A 
(i)' the words "for the purpose of making a survey of wakf properties" are 
wide enough ·to confer power on the Commissioner to investigate and adjudi~ 
cate upon the question whether a particular property was or was not wakf 
property and (ii) failure of the respondents to file a suit within the time 
allowed by s, 6( 1) made the inclusion of the property in the list Of wakfs 
final and conclusive. 
The word "therein" occurring in "any person interested 
therein" in 
~.. 6 (l) qualifies the words "wakf property" and not "person 
B 
interested in the w<ikfs" as wrongly assumed by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court 
HELD : While the High Court was right in determining the scope of s. 
6 ( 1). it was clearly in error in curtailing the ambit and scope of enquiry 
by the Commissioner under s. 4(3). [160 EJ 
C 
1. (a) The Commissioner of wakfs acted within his jurisdiction in holding 
the disputed property to be wakf property. [168 CJ 
(b )· The whole purpose of the survey of the wakfs by the Commissioner 
under s. 4(1) is to inform the Board of Wakfs as to existence of the wakfs 
in the State in order that all such wakfs should be brought .µnder the super-
vision and control of the Board. [160 DJ 
(c) The words "for the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.