Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Telangana State Wakf Board and Another – Appellants
Versus
Mohamed Muzafar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4522 of 2021, SLP (Civil) No. 28786 of 2015
Decided On : 03-08-2021
(A) Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 83 – Revision – Scope and ambit – In a Revision Petition scope of consideration is limited and judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in event of there being perversity seen on face of order and if conclusion reached cannot be acceptable to any reasonable person – In instant case, Tribunal had referred to evidence including manner in which extent of Wakf property was rectified and indicated as 998.66 sq. yards and also had taken into consideration first round of litigation between State Wakf Board and father of respondent wherein conclusion reached was that property in question is Wakf property – Such finding of fact which had been recorded by Tribunal based on evidence available on record could not have been lightly interfered with by High Court. (Para 14)
(B) Wakf Act, 1995 – Sections 7 and 85 – Eviction from Wakf property – In order to determine as to whether there is a bar on jurisdiction to civil court in relation to provision contained in Wakf Act, one is to ask question as to whether issue raised in suit or proceeding concerned is required to be decided under Wakf Act, 1995 by Tribunal under any provision or not – If answer to that question is in affirmative bar of jurisdiction of civil court would operate – Contention put forth by tenant is with reference to gazette notification and to contend that extent of property in occupation is not within extent as shown in gazette notification or otherwise – That will be a question which falls under Section 7 of Waqf Act – Suit was maintainable before Wakf Tribunal in facts and circumstances of instant case – Since gazette notification had been questioned to indicate that property which is in occupation of respondent was not a part of notified Wakf property, same applied both to suit Schedule properties – In such circumstance, Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine that question which had been framed as an issue in this suit – Tribunal had relied upon evidence available and had arrived at conclusion that property in question is Wakf property and had accordingly decreed suit – High Court has not adhered to well-established norm of limited scope available in a Revision Petition – Conclusion reached by High Court to hold that suit was not maintainable before Tribunal is also not justified – Order passed by High Court in Civil Revision Petition set aside and judgment passed by State Wakf Tribunal restored. (Paras 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Appellant No.1 is the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, while the appellant No.2 is the Mutawalli of registered Wakf institution which is known as Graveyard Mir Rahmat Ali Shah. Appellant had contended that the suit schedule properties are Wakf properties and had claimed that respondent is a tenant in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property and that he had encroached the Schedule ‘B’ property which also belongs to Wakf institution. The respondent had contended that the suit properties are not Wakf properties.
Findings of Court:
The dispute in effect is to question the extent of land beyond 667.8 sq. yards being included to be the property of the Wakf Institution which is included in the list and as such whether that extent in the list is Wakf property. That will be a question which falls under Section 7 of the Waqf Act. The very observation of the High Court indicating that an opportunity is to be afforded to the respondent to question the correctness of the contents of the gazette notification by following the procedure established by law is to allow the respondent to invoke the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act and seek appropriate orders.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellant No. 1 is the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, while the appellant No. 2 is the Mutawalli of the registered Wakf institution which is known as Graveyard Mir Rahmat Ali Shah. The said Wakf institution is stated to have been registered under Muntakhab bearing No. 998 dated 24.02.1953 and later entered in the book of endowment showing an extent of 666 sq. yards. The Muntakhab was amended by the Wakf Board in its resolution dated 21.04.1988 to the extent of correcting the land of the Wakf institution as 998.66 sq. yards and the same was published in the gazette notification dated 29.12.1988. The wakf institution/graveyard is situated near Tek Masjid, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. The father of appellant No. 2, Late Mir Dawood Ali was the Mutawalli appointed by the Wakf Board, whose name is recorded in the gazette referred to above. The appellant averred that during the lifetime of the father of appellant No. 2, the father of the respondent, namely, Late M.A. Qayyum had obtained on rent the premises bearing Municipal No. 5-7-420/2 measuring 90.16 sq. yards belonging to the Wakf institution. The father of the respondent was running a firewood stall which he later converted into a hotel and has been running the hotel business in the name and style “Hotel Najran.”
3. The case of the appellant was that the father of the respondent was paying rent in respect of the property and was being enhanced from time to time. The respondent, after he became a major continued the tenancy of his father in respect of the said premises and the monthly rent at the time of filing the suit was Rs. 1,500/- excluding electrical and water charges. The respondent is stated to have suceeded to the tenancy in the year 1995 and the rent was being paid to the Wakf Board since the institution at that point was under direct management of the Board in view of the death of the original Mutawalli i.e. the father of appellant No. 2. Subsequent thereto the appellant No. 2, as the successor was appointed as the Mutawalli in place of his father vide the proceedings dated 04.07.2005 which was published in the gazette on 04.08.2005. The appellant No. 2 intimated this fact to all the tenants of the property belonging to the Wakf institution through a letter dated 14.11.2005, whereafter the rent was being paid to him directly. In respect of the premises in the occupation of respondent the rent was not being paid regularly, which accumulated to Rs. 24,500/-. Despite repeated requests the respondent had not paid the arrears from the month of November 2005 for a period of 7 months which amounted to Rs. 10,500/-. The respondent therefore was due to pay the total amount which was due and unpaid.
4. The appellant further averred that while the Wakf institution was under the direct management of the Wakf Board, the respondent had encroached upon 40 sq. yards site of the graveyard on the western side of the tenanted premises, constructed road thereon and started running a firewood stall. The appellant No. 2 noticed the same when he assumed charge on 04.07.2005. Though the appellant No. 2 requested the respondent to pay damages for the use and the illegal occupation and vacate both the properties, namely the tenanted as well as the encroached portion, the respondent did not vacate. In that background, the appellant No. 2 got issued the legal notice dated 23.05.2006 terminating the tenancy of the tenanted portion with effect from 01.07.2006 and demanded to remove the encroachment. The respondent on receipt of the notice made payment of Rs. 4,500/- as part of the arrears of rent through a money order and also a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was paid directly to the appellant No. 2 towards the rent for the months of August, September and October, 2005. The respondent however got issued reply notice dated 12.06.2006 wherein he denied that the tenanted portion and the alleged encroached portion referred to was Wakf property and that his father had taken it on rent. F
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
