LexRAJASTHAN WAKF BOARD versus DEVKI NANDAN PATHAK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 3 S.C.R. 878 RAJASTHAN WAKF BOARD v. DEVKI NANDAN PATHAK & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6310 of 2017) MAY04,2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) Wakf Act, 1995 - ss.51, 52, 83 and 85 - Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal - The main question involved in the instant suit was whether the suit land was a Wa!if properzv or not - Plaintiff stated that it was a Wakf property whereas the defendants claimed that it was not the Wa!if property but was their self property - This question could be decided only by the Tribunal and not by the Ci"t! Court - Secondly, once the property is declared to be a Wakf property, a fortiori, whether the sale of such property is made by a person not D connected with the affairs of the Wa!if or by a person dealing with the affairs of the Wakj; the same becomes void by virtue of s.51 of the Act ·unless it is proved that it was made after obtaining prior permission of the Board as provided under the Act - The matters falling ulss.51 and 52 of the Act are also required to be decided by E the Tribunal and. therefore, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide such matters is also barred by virtue of provisions contained in s.85 of the Act - Matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the revision afresh with a view to decide as to whether the findings of the Tribunal on merits by which the suit was decreed were correct F or not. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: 1. The case at hand is governed by the Wakf Act, 1995. Section 51 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Wakf Deed, any gift, sale, exchange or G mortgage of any immovable property, which is a Wakf property, shall be void unless it is effected with the prior sanction of the Board. Section 52 of the Act empowers the Board to approach the Collector of the District to obtain possession of such Wakf property, which is alienated in contravention of Section 51 or H 878 .. RAJASTHAN WAKF BOARD v. DEVKI NANDAN PATHAK 879 Section 56 of the Act. It also provides a right of appeal to the A Tribunal against the order of the Collector passed under Section 52(2) of the Act. Section 54 of the Act provides that the Chief Executive Officer to approach the Tribunal to se.ek an order of eviction against any encroacher of the Wakf property. Section 83 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to determine any dispute, B question or other matter relating to a Waqf or Wakf property under this Act. Section 85 of the Act which deals with the Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any Wakf, Wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be C determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was right in its view in holding that it had the jurisdiction to try the suit on merits whereas the High Court was not so in holding the otherwise.[Paras 21- 25) (883-H; 884-A-F) 2. The Tribu11:il does have jurisdiction to decide the D question arising in the suit filed by respondent No.6 and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly trh:d the suit on merits. The reasons are not far to seek. In the first place, the main question involved in the suit was whether the suit land is a Wakf property or not. Plaintiff says that it is a Wakf property whereas the defendants say that it is not the Wakfproperty but it is their self property. This question can be decided only by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court. Second, once the property is declared to be a Wakf property, a fortiori, whether the sale of such property is made by a person E not connected with the affairs of the Wakf or by a person dealing with the affairs of the Wakf, the same becomes void by virtue of F Section 51 of the Act unless it is proved that it was made after obtaining prior permission of the Board as provided under the Act. One cannot dispute that the matters falling under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act are also required to be decided by the Tribunal and hence jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide such matters is also barred by virtue of provisions contained in Section 85 of the Act. The High Court while deciding the question did not examine the question in its proper perspective.[Paras 26- 28) (884-F-H; 885-A-D] Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Hamay1111 Mirza Waqf G H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.