The A.P. Wakf Board, respondent herein, filed A.T.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Special Officer, A.P. Tenancy Tribunal-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 13 of the A.P. Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the revision petitioners herein from the petition schedule property. In the tenancy case, the revision petitioners filed a petition in I.A.No.41 of 2011, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), with a prayer to decide the jurisdiction with regard to the maintainability of the case, as per the decision of this Court in ShameemSulthana V. Syed Ibrahim Quadri and another (L.C. 2011(12) A.P. 179). The respondent filed counter contending that the tenancy case was filed basing on the judgment in A.S.No.90 of 2003 passed by the II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below disposed of the petition by order dated 05.06.2012. The same is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

The order of the Court below is not clear. When a petition about maintainability is filed, it should be allowed or dismissed, but in the present case, it is disposed of and it is not clear whether the relief is granted or denied. The Court below is expected to be very clear in disposing of such kind of matters. From the tenor of the order, it is seen that the relief is denied.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the issue, as there is bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts under Section 85 r/w Sections 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) and that without referring to these Sections and also the judgment of this Court rendered in Shameem Sulthana case (1 supra), the Special Officer negatived the claim of the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the tenancy case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no dispute regarding the title of the petition schedule property, as such, it is not covered under the bar envisaged under Section 85 r/w Sections 7 and 83 of the Act. He also contended that the tenancy case was filed in pursuance of the judgment in A.S.No.90 of 2003 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, to which, the revision petitioners are parties. It is also contended that the petitioners had taken a plea in A.S.No.90 of 2003 that they were the tenants of the respondent and that, at any rate, the findings in the said appeal had become final. Therefore, the revision petitioners cannot contend that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010 (5) ALT 36 (SC).

Sections 83, 85 and 7 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, read as under:

“Section 83 of the Act envisages Constitution of Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf and Wakf property under the said Act.

Section 85 of the Act – Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts :- No suit or other legal proceeding 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 determined by a Tribunal.

Section 7 of the Act – Power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs – If, after the commencement of this Act, any question arises, whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs is wakf property or not, or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or a Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf, or any person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relating to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribuna