( 1. ) ALL the aforesaid petitions are filed, challenging the order of Chief executive Officer, M. P. Wakf Board, Bhopal dated 26-4-2008 by which an application filed by petitioner (non-applicant before the Chief Executive officer) under Order 14 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, dated 9-1-2008 was rejected.

( 2. ) THE authority found that under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as act for short) it was not necessary for him to frame the issues to decide the disputes between the parties. Section 54 does not make applicable the procedure envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as cpc for short ). The Chief Executive Officer is also not a Civil Court and the proceedings under Section 54 of the Act are not under the CPC. Section 54 (3) provides a limited enquiry in respect of encroachment on Wakf property and after issuing a notice to the encroaches, the Chief executive Officer is empowered to remove the encroachment, recording aforesaid findings the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. As in all the aforesaid cases, same applications with similar allegations were decided, so all these petitions are being decided by this common order and for the convenience facts are taken from W. P. No. 5939/2008 (Asif Ansari Vs. Wakf Mahal Umrao Jehan and others ).

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on following grounds:- (1) That to decide the dispute between the parties it was necessary for the Chief Executive Officer to frame the issues in the case. On framing issues, parties would know the real controversy and substantial points of dispute and would be able to produce evidence in this regard. So it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to frame the issues in the case. (2) Reliance was placed to the Apex Court judgment in J. K Iron and steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, AIR 1956 SC 231 and Banke Ram Vs. Smt. Sarasti Devi, AIR 1977 punjab and Haryana 158, and submitted that this petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.

( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the proceedings were of administrative nature and not judicial proceedings and it was not at all required by the Chief Executive officer to frame issues, to decide the factum of encroachment. The Chief executive Officer has rightly rejected the application in which no interference is needed.

( 5. ) TO appreciate the rival contention of the parties factual position may be stated. The Chief Executive Officer, M. P. Wakf Board, Bhopal issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner under Section 54 of the Act in respect of an encroachment of petitioner on Wakf property of which details were given in notice (Annexure P-l) and petitioner was asked to appear in the office of Chief executive Officer. The petitioner filed reply of show-cause notice in which the petitioner denied that he was an encroaches. Thereafter the Chief Executive officer respondent No. 2 proceeded to enquire into the matter. In the said enquiry petitioner moved an application under Order 14 Rule 1, CPC, for framing of issues which has been decided by the impugned order. The Act provides removal of encroachment from Wakf property. For ready reference Section 54 reads thus:-

"54, Removal of encroachment from Wakf property.- (1) Whenever the Chief Executive Officer considers whether on receiving any complaint or on his own motion that there has been an encroachment on any land, building, space or other property which is Wakf property and, which has been registered as such under this act, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling upon him to show cause before a date to be specified in such notice, as to why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date so specified should not be made and shall also send a copy o