Jurisdiction over disputes related to Waqf properties lies exclusively with Waqf Tribunals, barring civil court intervention, as reinforced by the WAQF ACT, 1995 and Supreme Court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(Prakash Padia, J.)

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta and Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, challenging the judgment dated 4.5.2022 and consequential decree dated 7.5.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur in Suit No. 2004 of 2019 (Krishna Bihari and others v. Adnan Farooq and others) as well as judgment dated 11.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2022 (Krishna Bihari and others v. Adnan Farooq and others).

3. The facts as stated in second appeal are that the plaintiffs have instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiffs without following due procedure of law.

4. The case set up in the plaint was that plot No. 777, area 0.47 Hectare, plot No. 779 area 0.53 Hectare situated at Mauja Karjahan, Tappa Patra, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur is a property of waqf. The waqf is allal-aulad and mutwalli of the said waqf is Adnan Farooq. The case of the plaintiffs was that on the request made by the plaintiffs, the defendants have permitted the plaintiffs to raise construction over waqf property and to pay Rs. 700/- as annual rent. It was further stated in the plaint that they are continuously paying rent to waqf but on 20.11.2019, the waqf demanded Rs. 7000/- annual rent from the plaintiffs and further threatened that in case the said rent is not paid @ Rs. 7000/- per annum they will be evicted from the property. With the aforesaid averment the suit was instituted for permanent injunction, with a prayer that the defendant/respondent be restrained from evicting the plaintiffs-appellant without following the due procedure of law. In the said suit, on behalf of the defendants/respondents, an application under Rule VII Rule 11 CPC was filed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. As per plaint averment, the property for which injunction has been sought is property of waqf and as per the provisions contained under Section 85 of the WAQF ACT , 1995, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.

5. The aforesaid application filed by the defendant/respondent was numbered as paper No. 21 Ga. Objection to the said application was filed by the plaintiffs- appellant, which was numbered as paper No. 27Ga.

6. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur by judgment dated 4.5.2022, allowed the aforesaid application, holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

7. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 4.5.2022, the plaintiffs-appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2022 ( Krishna Bihari and others v. Adnan Farooq and Another ). The aforesaid appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated 11.8.2023, relying upon a judgment of Apex Court in case of Rashid Ali Beg v. Farid Pindari , 2022 (4) SCC 414 .

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the substantial questions of law mentioned in memo of appeal arises in this appeal. The said questions of law are reproduced below:

1. Whether, the learned Courts below have erred in rejecting the plaint giving finding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and it is only the Waqf Tribunal?

2. Whether, the learned Courts below have erred to interpret the Section 83 & 85 of considering the WAQF ACT , 1995 without considering the Section 6 & 7 of WAQF ACT ?

3. Whether the learned Courts below have erred to interpret the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rash