Judgment :-

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. These three appeals by special leave arise out of three different orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby revision petitions filed by the appellants against the orders of A.P. Wakf Tribunal have been dismissed and the orders of eviction passed by the Tribunal affirmed. Since the appeals raise a common question of law for our determination the same were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question is whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who are occupying different items of what are admittedly Wakf properties. The Wakf Tribunal before whom the suits for eviction of the tenants were filed answered the question regarding its jurisdiction in the affirmative and decreed the suit filed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellants filed revision petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal was in error in assuming jurisdiction and directing their eviction. Dismissal of the Revision Petitions by the High Court has led to the filing of the present appeals as already noticed above.

2. Whether or not the Wakf Tribunal can entertain and adjudicate upon a dispute regarding eviction of a tenant holding wakf property under the Wakf Board, would depend upon the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995 and express or implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any such dispute. If the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts whether such exclusion is absolute and all pervasive or limited only to a particular class of disputes is also an incidental question that may have to be addressed. There is a cleavage in the judicial opinion expressed on these questions by different High Courts in the country. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has in T. Shivalingam v. A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. 1999 (3) ALT 602, P. Rama Rao & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Registrar (Vigilance) and Ors. 2000 (1) ALT 210, Jai Bharat Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad 2000 (5) ALD 743 and Syed Muneer v. Chief Executive Officer and 5 Ors. 2001 (4) ALD 430 taken the view that the Tribunal established under Section 83 of the Wakf Act is competent to entertain and adjudicate upon all kinds of disputes so long as the same relate to any wakf property. So also the High Court of Rajasthan in Anjuman A. Burhani v. Daudi Bohra Jamaet, Registered Society and Anr. AIR 2009 Raj. 150 has taken the view that, the very purpose of creating a Tribunal under the Wakf Act would be defeated if the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is construed in a narrow sense. A similar view has been expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Wakf Imambara Imlipura v. Smt. Khursheeda Bi & Ors. AIR 2009 MP 238. The High Court of Kerala in Aliyathammada Beethathabiyyapura Pookoya Haji v. Pattakkal Cheriyakoya & Ors. AIR 2003 Ker. 366 and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Surinder Singh v. Punjab Wakf Board & Ors., CR No.32 of 2009(1) have also taken a similar view.

3. A contrary view has been expressed by the High Court of Karnataka in St. Gregorious Orthodox Cathedral, Bangalore v. Aga Ali Asgar Wakf, Bangalore and Anr. 2008 (6) KarLJ 358 and by the High Court of Madras in Saleem v. PA Kareem & Ors. 2008 (2) CTC 492 (Mad). The High Court of Allahabad in Suresh Kumar v. Managing Committee 2009 INDLAW All 1770 has concurred with that line of reasoning. The High Court of Bombay in Abdul Kadar @ Babbu s/o Ismail v. Masjid Juma Darwaja a registered Public Trust through its Secretary Manzoor Mohammad z/o Zahoor Mohammad 2009 (1) BomCR 498 has also taken the view that in cases where the dispute is not regarding the nature of the property, it is a civil dispute which can be determined only by the competent Civil Court and not by the Tribunal constituted u