Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Wakf Board has sought quashing the order of the Wakf Tribunal in OS 27/2009 on 26.2.2011. The Wakf Tribunal is before this Court on the ground that the Sajjada Nasheen and Muthavalliship is by notification and these are e Wakf properties. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. He sought to bring to the notice of this Court the admission by the respondent to the effect that it is a property belonging to the Wakf Board. As such, order of the Wakf Tribunal conferring the right on the respondent is erroneous. In support of his contention, petitioner's counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagar v. Dir. Health Services, Haryana and Ors. (2013) SCCR 868 and he has also relied upon another decision in the case of M.P. Wakf Board Vs. Subhan Shah (D) By LRs. and Others, 2006 (11) SCALE 71 .

2. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Wakf Board Vs. Subhan Shah (D) By LRs. and Others, 2006 (11) SCALE 71 to contend that as per S. 9 r/w 83 of the Wakf Act, the Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and restrain the defendant from interfering with the administration and enjoyment of the mosque and madarasa.

3. It is seen that the land in question is a service inam land. The father and grand-father of the respondent/plaintiff were said to be the Sajjada Nasheen and by virtue of which the land as well as Dargha worship right was conferred on the respondent. The property which was conferred by the Land Tribunal in favour of the respondent/plaintiff stands conferred on the respondent in view of the fact that there is a grant of service inam in favour of the holder of the office that cannot be disputed and there is no right available to the Wakf on the said property conferred by virtue of the order of the Land Tribunal. So far as the office of the Sajjada Nasheen of these two dargahs are concerned, it is said to be hereditary. Accordingly, having looked into the aspect, the Wakf Tribunal has conferred right on the respondent. This appears to be an appropriate reasoning. The argument that the Wakf has notified the property long back in the year 1975 itself, therefore these two dargahs and posts of Sajjada Nasheen and Muthawalli has to be dealt by the Wakf Board, in the context, appears to be redundant and unwarranted having regard to the right conferred on the predecessor of the respondent that is hereditary. Further more, the order of the Wakf Tribunal conferring right in favour of the respondent cannot be called in question. This petition filed by the petitioner-Wakf Board does not deserve any consideration.