Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral):- The Punjab Wakf Board has filed the present revision petition challenging the orders dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Amritsar, as also the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-1).

2. The Punjab Wakf Board filed a suit for possession of the Wakf property measuring 89 square yards comprised in Khasra No.880 min. The suit was filed before the Wakf Tribunal. It was claimed in the suit that the Punjab Wakf Board is the owner of the Wakf property and the property is part of Khasra No.880. It was further claimed that the defendant is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit property and his capacity over the same is merely that of trespasser. It was further claimed that plaintiff is not only entitled to the possession but also entitled to decree for recovery of mesne profits for unauthorised and illegal use and occupation of the property.

3. In the written statement, defendant took a stand that in fact he is not in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.880 min rather he is in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.881/2. The defendant further claimed that house has been constructed over the land comprised in Khasra No.881/2 and defendant is residing in the aforesaid house alongwith his family members.

4. During the pendency of the suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Wakf Tribunal passed an order dated 16.08.2011 relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case 2010(8) SCC 726 titled as Ramesh Gobindram (dead) Through LRs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf held that the trial in the suit could only proceed before the Civil Court. Learned Tribunal further held that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the papers of the suit were transmitted to the Civil Court.

5. When the suit papers were received in the Civil Court, Wakf Board filed an application for transfer of the suit back to the Wakf Tribunal as according to the Wakf Board, the Wakf Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Gobindra’s case (supra). However, Civil Court dismissed the application filed by the Wakf Board vide order dated 19.10.2012. The learned Civil Court ordered that since the matter in the application has already been decided by the Wakf Tribunal, therefore, the application is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Gobindram’s case (Supra). This judgment is basically adjudicating upon question whether Wakf Tribunal can entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute regarding the eviction of a tenant holding Wakf property. The question framed in para 2 of the judgment is extracted as under:-

“Whether or not the Wakf Tribunal can entertain and adjudicate upon a dispute regarding eviction of a tenant holding wakf property under the Wakf Board, would depend upon the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1995 and express or implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any such dispute. If the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts whether such exclusion is absolute and all pervasive or limited only to a particular class of disputes is also an incidental question that may have to be addressed.”

7. After detailed discussion, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India arrived at the following conclusion:-

“21. There is, in our view, nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by rea