The jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to Wakf properties resides exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, and the High Court cannot entertain such matters.

ORDER :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents regarding Jurisdiction.

2. The respondents raised objections that the order impugned, which is challenged before this Court cannot be entertained in a writ petition and the petitioner has to approach the Wakf Tribunal as the issue is with regard to the Wakf.

3. The counsel for the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Appeal No.5297/2004 (Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and Anr.), brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs No.14 and 16 of the said judgment, which is extracted herein below:

14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word ‘Wakf’ has been defined in Section 3 (r) of the WAKF ACT , 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3 (r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal.

16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Sections 83 (1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83 (2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83 (1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of Sections 83 (1) and 84 indicates.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that, the order passed by the respondents is without any authority or jurisdiction and the same can be questioned before this Court only in a writ petition. It is contended that there is no dispute with regard to the Wakf property is concerned and here is a dispute with regard to merging of two Wakfs by the respondents and hence the writ petition is maintainable. The counsel in support of his arguments also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(8) SCC 726 in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRS Vs. Surga Humayun Mirza Wakf and brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs No.20 and 21 of the said judgment. Paragraphs No.20 and 21 also extracted herein below:

20. From a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 (supra) it is clear that the jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act. What is noteworthy is that under Section 6 read with Section 7 (supra) the institution of the Civil Court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein. The bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the wakf property.

21. We may at this stage usefully digress from the core issue only to highlight the fact that Sections 6 (1) and the proviso thereto has fallen for interpretation