The decision emphasized the need for adjudicatory bodies to act strictly within the statutory framework and follow the prescribed procedures.

S.B. SINHA, J.-

These two appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. One Hazrat Sha Walli was a Peer. He was called Shan Shah-e-Malwa.

On his death, a dargah was established in his memory. Erstwhile Maharaja Holkar Darbar, a Hindu king granted mafi inayat land to the Dargah. Allegedly, the land in question was held to be not forming a part of wakf in terms of the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 (for short "the 1954 Act"). One Munna Bai filed an application for getting her name mutated in respect of the property in question. It was dismissed on 4-2-1967. She thereafter filed an application under Section 25 of the 1954 Act for registering the Dargah as a wakf. A notice was issued to Subhan Shah and others who were the heirs of the said Hazrat Sha Walli (hereinafter referred to as "the private parties").

They filed their show cause denying and disputing that the property in ' question was a wakf property. It was contended that Munna Bai filed the aforementioned application as she was denied her claim to occupy the post of a mujjawarship. It was further contended:

"That there has been 50 bighas land under the sanad but when we were minors and Mahboobsha, the husband of the lady was the person in I charge of the office of mujjawarship, the jahagirdar had snatched away about 40 bighas, but since ours taking charge of it we are most aptly managing the property and properly looking after the Dargah. It is wrong to say that there is a managing committee for this Dargah."

3. On or about 18-3-1968, the properties were declared as wakf property and the Dargah was registered as wakf by an order dated 18-3-1968. The I private parties' application for recall of the said order was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board (for short "the Board") by an order dated 24-6-1968 stating that registration of the Dargah as wakf was legal. A committee was thereafter constituted by the Board for managing the affairs of the Dargah. Possession of the private parties was allegedly forcibly taken over.

4. A suit thereafter was filed in the civil court for a declaration that the orders passed by the Board are null and void and for recovery of possession of the suit property inter alia contending that the order registering the Dargah as wakf was vitiated in law. It was also contended that the application filed by the said Munna Bai under Section 25 of the 1954 Act was barred by limitation.

5. Parliament enacted the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short "the 1995 Act"). The 1954 Act was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Madhya Pradesh constituted the M.P. Wakf Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). It also amended the provision of the said Act in terms whereof all civil suits stood transferred to the Tribunal. The suit filed by private parties was also transferred.

6. Before the Tribunal, the Board did not adduce any evidence. It, however, allegedly filed a gazette of the year 1984. The Tribunal passed an a order framing a scheme for managing the affairs of the said Dargah. Both the Board and the private parties aggrieved thereby filed revision applications before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed both the applications holding:

(i) In view of the admission made before the Tribunal that they are not averse to the property being declared a wakf, if they are declared to b be the mujawar thereof.

(ii) The Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to frame a scheme.

7. Both the Board and the private parties are, thus, before us.

8. Contention of Mr Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board is that power to frame a scheme vests in the Board and not in the Tribunal and, thus, the High Court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order.

9. Mr Syed Ali Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private parties, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the