Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Yashpal Rathore
For the Respondent : Murtuza Bohra, Ranjeet Sen, Ms. Anita Sharma

ORDER : – Parties are heard finally at motion hearing stage.

2. Applicant has filed present civil revision under section 83(9) of the WAKF ACT , 1995 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3-2-2022, whereby the suit of the applicant/plaintiff has been dismissed being time barred.

3. Counsel for the applicant contended that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the application under Section 32 of the WAKF ACT and also erred in dismissing the suit without recording the evidence primarily on the ground of limitation. Section 6(1) of the WAKF ACT is not applicable to the applicant because he is stranger to Wakf and is a non-muslim. No notice has been issued to any person interested in the suit property before issuing the gazette notification. The impugned order is bad in law and is also against the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for its reconsideration.

4. Per contra, counsel for the other side have opposed the revision and prays for its rejection. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that as per the sub-section (1) of section 6 of the WAKF ACT limitation is one year, which starts from the date of publication of Wakf notification dated 13-9-1985, therefore, this suit is time barred and this civil revision is not maintainable.

5. Parties are heard at length and perused the documents filed along with the revision.

6. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Punjab Wakf Board vs. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha , reported in (2000) 2 SCC 121 in paragraphs No. 24 to 26 has held as under : –

“24. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the Explanation added below to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the WAKF ACT ; 1954, by the Central Act, 69 of 1984. The Explanation reads as follows : – “Explanation : – For the purpose of this section and section 6-A, the expression “any person interested therein”, occurring in sub-section (1) of this section and in sub-section (I) of section 6-A, shall, in relation to any property specified as Wakf property in a list of Wakfs published, under sub-section (2) of section 5, after the commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under section 4”.

25. Obviously, the intention of Parliament was to say that if a suit was not filed within one year, the Notification would be binding not only on those interested in the trust but even strangers, claiming interest in the property in question, provided they were given notice in the inquiry under section 4 preceding the Notification under section 5(2).

26. In this connection, we have to point out that the Government of India has not issued any date for commencement of the Explanation in section 6 of the WAKF ACT quoted above. Even if it is assumed that the Explanation can be invoked, there is no material before us to show that any notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat before the issuance of the Notification, as required by the Explanation. If no notice was issued as required by the Notification, the Notification would not come in the way of a Civil Court to decide the question if raised between the Wakf and a third party, even if such a suit was filed beyond one year from the date of the Notification, Thus, once the Assistant Collector and the Collector had jurisdiction to decide, their decision became f