1. In this batch of matters, common question of law and fact is involved, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 16-1-2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board and also the consequential order dated 25-6-2014 directing the petitioners to deliver the vacant possession of the subject shops to the Mutwalli, Hazrat Fatehshah Mazar and Masjid Trust Committee, Tikrapara, Raipur. The said Mutwalli, Hazrat Fatehshah Mazar and Masjid Trust Committee filed an application under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (unamended) for removal of encroachment from the wakf property in which the petitioners appeared and filed reply that they are lessees of the suit shops and the said lease has also been renewed from time to time, they are not encroachers and they are tenants as such, and prayed that the application filed under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 pertaining to removal of encroachment from waqf property deserves to be rejected.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board by its impugned order after framing issues allowed the application holding that the petitioners are encroachers and they are in unauthorised occupation since 1994 and, therefore, they are liable to pay damages right from 1994. After final order of eviction, notices have also been issued for delivering vacant possession which has also been challenged.

4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, would vehemently submit that the petitioners are not encroachers and they are admittedly lessees of the suit shops duly granted by the said Committee, therefore, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 7 read with Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (unamended), jurisdiction to evict the tenant would be with the civil court as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and another, (2014) 16 SCC 38. He would further submit that dismissal of civil suit for want of prosecution would not attract the principle of res judicata and relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332. He would also submit that time barred rent, if any, cannot be recovered for more than three years.

5. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would submit that the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law, as the lease was for a period not exceeding three years, there was no lease at all and even if the lease is there, i.e. the contravention of Section 56 of the Waqf Act, 1995, therefore, it has no effect at all, and as such, the Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board is absolutely justified in granting the application for removal of unauthorised encroachment by the petitioners over the wakf property.

6. Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 and 2, would submit that in the instant dispute, the jurisdiction lies with the civil court to determine tenancy.

7. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, would support the impugned order and submit that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Wakf Board, is strictly in accordance with law and all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. On due consideration, it appears that the question that falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners, who are claiming to be the tenants of Hazrat Fatehshah Mazar