LexM.P. WAKF BOARD versus SUBHAN SHAH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
; -- - M.P. WAKF BOARD v. SUBHAN SHAH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. OCTOBER 31, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Wakf Act, 1995-ss. 32 and 83-Framing of scheme for managing affairs of Wakf property by Tribunal-Held: Not valid as framing of scheme A B is within exclusive power of Board and not Tribunal-s.32 prescribes the C powers of Wakf Board and s.82 lays down the powers of.Tribunal-These bodies cannot usurp the functions of one another-Matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration-Wok/ Act, 1954-s.25. Land property in question was granted to Dargah. The Wakf Board declared the said property as a Wakf property. Board thereafter constituted a committee for managing the affairs of the Dargah. Private parties claiming D to be in possession of the said property, alleged forcible dispossession. They filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession on the ground that the orders passed by Board are null and void. In view of enactment of the Wakf Act, 1995, the suit was transferred to M.P. Wakf Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order framing a Scheme for managing the affairs of the said Dargah. High Court held that the Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to frame a scheme. Hence these appeals. Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, the Court HELD: 1. Tribunal took into consideration the admission of the private parties that Majawar in question is their inherited property and their forefathers have been working as Mujawar in the Dargah. On the basis of E F the said admission on the part of the private parties, the Tribunal opined that there existed a Wakf. The purported admission on the part of the private parties G was a conditi'onal one; by reason whereof, the nature of the property being Wakf had not been admitted. An admission of a.party must be clear and explicit in a case where an inference is required to be drawn in regard to the fact that thereby he had admitted the title of the other. Generally speaking, even no title can be created by admission. 191-B; 92-EI 85 lI 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A Thayyil Mammo and Anr. v. Kolliath Ramunni and Ors., AIR (1966) SC B 33, relied on. 2.1. The Board itself could have initiated proceedings in terms of Section 27 of the Wakf Act, 1954 but then no suo motu proceeding was initiated by it. 191-D-EI 2.2. If the proceeding was initiated by the Board for which it had no jurisdiction whatsoever, its order would be 'coram non judice'. 192-CJ Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR (1954) SC 340 and MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., 120041 9 SCC C 619, relied on. Mis. D.N. Roy and S.K. Ban11e1jee and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1197013sec119, referred to. 3.1. If the nature of dedication of the property does not constitute a Wakf within the meaning of the provisions of the Wakf Act, it must be proved that D it became a·wakfby reason of long user. No such finding has been arrived at. (92-F) Motishah and Ors: v. Abdul Gaffar Khan, AIR (1956) Nagpur 38; Arur Singh and Ors. v. Radar Din and Ors., AIR (1940) Lahore 119, referred to. E 3.2. If the property in question was not a Wakfproperty and the order registering the property as a Wakf property was invalid in law, the matter might have ended there. But, the Tribunal has gone a step further and directed framing ofscheme.193-DI 3.3. The Tribunal .had been constituted for the purposes mentioned in Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is an adjud.icatory body. Its decision is F final and binding but then it could not usurp the jurisdiction of the Board. In absence of any power vested in the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have left the said function to the Board which is statutorily empowered therefor. Where a statute creates different authorities to exercise their respective functions thereunder, each of such authority must exercise the functions within the G four corners of the statute. 194-E-F) H 4. It is trite that when a procedure has been laid down the authority must act strictly in terms thereof. 194-FI Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6975 of2004. I. - M.P. WAKF BOARD v. SUBHAN SHAH (D) BY LRS. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 87 From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.3.2003 of the High Court A of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Civil Revision No. 463/2000. Shakil Ahemed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.