LexRAJA KHAN versus U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1131 RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD & ANR. (Special Leave Petition(CIVIL) No. 31797 of 2009) NOVEMBER 26, 2010 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Article 226 - Writ petition involving landed property - Territorial jurisdiction of Benches of the High Court - Writ C petition filed in Allahabad Bench of High Court for allotment on lease of the land situate in the district falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court - Single Judge entertaining the writ petition and in an application for interim relief granting the relief claimed in the writ petition - D Division Bench of the High Court setting aside th9 orders of the single Judge - HELD: The writ petition could not have been validly filed or entertained in the Allahabad Bench - Besides, by the ex-pare orders, the writ petition has been practically allowed - Division Bench has rightly set aside the E interim orders of the Single Judge, as the same were clearly passed for extraneous considerations - A Jot of complaints are coming against certain Judges of the High Court - Chief Justice of the High Court requested to do the needful - Suit - Territorial jurisdiction - Interim orders - Relief - F Administration of Justice. The petitioner presented a suit in the civil court of District Hamirpur (within the jurisdiction of Allahabad Bench of the High Court) with regard to allotment on lease, for the purposes of 'Mela', of certain land situate G in district Bahraich (within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court) belonging to the Wakf. The Munsarim made a report that the suit was not cognizable 1131 H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A at Hamirpur for the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Allahabad Bench of the High Court. The Single Judge, by interim order dated 11.6.2010 and 18.6.2010 directed allotment of the land to the petitioner in the 'Mela area' and compliance of the 8 orders. However, the Division Bench set aside the interim orders passed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the petition for special leave. c Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The ex-parte orders passed by the Single Judge are shocking to say the least and were clearly passed on extraneous considerations for the reasons: (i} The property in question is in the District of Bahraich which D is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Threfore, the writ petition could not have been validly filed or entertained in the Allahabad Bench of the High Court.* (ii) The writ petition was not maintainable because ordinarily no writ petition E lies against a private body; (iii) By the ex-parte order dated 11.6.2010 the writ petition has been practically allowed since by that ex-parte order the respondents have been directed to allot the land to the petitioner for the purpose of running circus etc., and possession of the F allocated land was directed to be handed over within three days. Subsequently, on 18.6.2010, the same Single Judge passed an order directing the District Magistrate ·and SP, Bahraich to take appropriate action for compliance of the earlier order. It is well settled that by G an interim order the final relief should not be granted.** (iv) The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court which was dismissed on 19.5.2010 with liberty to approach the District Magistrate by making a representation. The H petitioner made a representation which was decided by RAJA KHAN v. U.P. SUNNI CENTRAL WAQF BOARD1133 the District Magistrate on 21.5.2010 with the direction to A the Committee of Management of the Waqf to reconsider the petitioner's claim for allotment of land. The petitioner then filed another writ petition before the Lucknow Bench challenging the order of the District Magistrate. This writ petition was dismissed on 28.5.2010 by the Division B Bench of the Lucknow Bench observing that the second writ petition for the same relief was not maintainable, as earlier, the writ petition filed by the petitioners for the same relief,. had been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19.5.2010; and that the dispute like this nature, c since cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, the High Court did not entertain the earlier petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.