TELANGANA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR. versus MOHAMED MUZAFAR

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 03-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
TELANGANA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR.
v.
MOHAMED MUZAFAR
(Civil Appeal No. 4522 of 2021)
AUGUST 03, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Wakf Act, 1995: ss. 6, 7, 83 and 85 – Disputes regarding
wakfs properties – Power of tribunal to determine – On facts, suit
by Wakf Board before the Wakf tribunal seeking eviction of tenant
from property belonging to Wakf Institution – Case of the tenant
that suit property not a wakf property and extent of land also
disputed – Tribunal held the suit properties to be the property
belonging to the Wakf institution and directed the tenant to vacate
the suit porperties – High Court set aside the order holding that the
suit was not maintainable before the Wakf tribunal – On appeal,
held: Judgment passed by the Wakf tribunal was rendered in a suit
which was maintainable before the Wakf tribunal and it had the
jurisdiction to do so – Tribunal relied upon the evidence available
and had arrived at the conclusion that the property in question is
Wakf property and had accordingly decreed the suit – Evidence
available on record has been analysed in its correct perspective
and an appropriate conclusion has been reached by the Wakf tribunal
– High Court did not adhere to the norm of limited scope available
in a Revision Petition – Further the order by the High Court to hold
that the suit was not maintainable before the tribunal not justified
and cannot be sustained – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
is set aside and the judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The consideration by the High Court ought not
to have been in the nature of reappreciating the evidence which
is permissible in an appeal. In a Revision Petition the scope of
consideration is limited and the judgment/order under challenge
can be interfered only in the event of there being perversity seen
on the face of the order and if the conclusion reached cannot be
acceptable to any reasonable person. On the factual aspects, the
tribunal had referred to the evidence including the manner in
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 63
63
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
which the extent of the Wakf property was rectified and indicated
as 998.66 sq. yards and also had taken into consideration the
first round of litigation between the Wakf Board and the father of
the respondent wherein the conclusion reached was that the
property in question is Wakf property. Therefore, such finding of
fact recorded by the tribunal based on evidence available on
record could not have been lightly interfered with by the High
Court. [Para 14][72-D-F]
1.2 The appellants at the first instance had issued a notice
to the respondent terminating the tenancy relating to the suit ‘A’
schedule property. A further notice was issued in respect of the
suit ‘B’ schedule property requiring the respondent to vacate
the encroached portion. The respondent, by his reply notice
denied that the property in question was a Wakf property. In the
said circumstance, the instant case cannot be deemed as an
admitted case of the property being Wakf property as in the reply
notice itself the respondent had disputed the same. It is in that
circumstance the appellants being of the impression that the first
issue to be established is that the property in question is the
Wakf property, which could be considered by the tribunal, had
filed the suit before the Wakf tribunal. [Para 20][75-C-E]
1.3 The inclusion of the property in the gazette dated
29.12.1988 which was disputed by the respondent was taken into
consideration. In that light, through the discussion and conclusion
reached by the High Court while adverting to the submission of
encroachment of 40 sq. yards which was described in Schedule
‘B’ to the suit it has indicated that there is no evidence of required
standard as to how the extent of Wakf property had increased
from 667.8 sq. yards to 998.66 sq. yards and by mere recital in
the gazette notification and the resurvey report, the Muntakhab
and the amended Muntakhab would not be sufficient to decide
the suit since the tenant had denied the case of the plaintiffs that
the ‘B’ schedule property is a Wakf property. The High Court
further held that the aspect as to whether the ‘B’ schedule
property is a Wakf property or not cannot be decided without
affording an opportunity to the tenant to question the correctness
of the contents of the gazette notification by following the
procedure established by law. [Para 2

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