Jurisdiction of Civil Court in property disputes involving Waqf properties is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and such matters must be decided by the Waqf Tribunal as per Section 83 of the Act.

Hemant Gupta, J.

Re.: I.A. No. 859 of 2015 in L.P.A. No. 185 of 2015

The application is for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 859 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 23 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

Re.: I.A. No. 788 of 2015 in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2015

4. The application is for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 788 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 25 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

Re.: L.P.A. No. 185 of 2015

6. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 11th of November, 2014 in C.W.J.C. No. 7574 of 2010 and analogous case (C.W.J.C. No. 15106 of 2009) whereby, challenge to the order dated 26th of February, 2010 passed by the Sub-Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No. 278 of 2008 remained unsuccessful and the above said Title Suit was transferred to the Waqf Tribunal, Bihar.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are claiming title over the property in question through Bettiah Estate, therefore, the matter cannot be referred to the Waqf Tribunal.

8. The stand of the defendant was that Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit regarding the Waqf property, therefore, the order passed is legal and proper. It is also asserted that the grandfather of the present appellants was record keeper as well as Muazzim. Therefore, he was given accommodation in the outer house in the Maszid for use as Hujra for Muazzim or Imam and the property in question was never ettled by Bettiah Estate with the ancestors of the appellants.

9. Learned trial court passed an order on 26th of February, 2010 for remitting the matter to the Waqf Tribunal as all questions as to whether property is Waqf or not are required to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal.

10. The challenge to the said order remained unsuccessful before the learned Single Bench. Still aggrieved; the plaintiffs are in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

11. At the outset, we may notice that before the learned Single Bench the order passed by the Civil Court was under challenge. Thus, the jurisdiction of the learned Single Bench was invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If that is so, the present appeal is not maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Reference may be made to the judgment reported as Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 9 SCC 1. The Court held as under:-

“18. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement makes it clear as day that an order passed by a civil court can only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the parameters of challenge have been clearly laid down by this Court in series of decisions which have been referred to by a three-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam, (2015) 5 SCC 423, which is a binding precedent. Needless to emphasise that once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-court appeal is maintainable.”

12. In view of the said fact, the present Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

Re.: L.P.A. No. 169 of 2015

13. The learned Single Bench also dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 15106 of 2009, wherein the appellants have sought quashing of the notices issued on 20th of May, 2009 by the Chief Executive Offi