Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for disputes involving factual questions; parties should seek resolution in the appropriate forum.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, C.J.

1. Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Ismail Khan, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Abu Akram, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Waqf Board for the respondent.

2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely W.P.No.28989 of 2023, has been dismissed.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are that the appellants claim to be the owners and are in possession of the land forming part of Survey No.15, part of House No.3-9 admeasuring about 368 square yards situated at Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as, "the subject property"). The appellants claim title to the subject property on the strength of the two sale deeds dated 23.12.2013. The appellants, after purchasing the subject property, learnt that a Gazette Notification No.9-A, dated 01.03.1990, has been issued under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), notifying the same as the waqf property.

4. The appellants thereupon filed the writ petition in which the validity of the notification dated 01.03.1990 insofar as it pertains to the subject property was assailed, inter alia, on the ground that no notice was given to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and the procedure prescribed under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act has not been followed. Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 16.10.2023, inter alia, held that a suit for recovery of possession of the subject property, namely O.A.No.16 of 2023, on the file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the Waqf Tribunal"), is pending. It was further held that the dispute in respect of the subject property is pending adjudication before the Waqf Tribunal. Therefore, the Court declined to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and granted the liberty to the appellants to raise all contentions either in the pending Original Application or by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the remedy available to the appellants under Section 6 of the Act is barred by limitation and therefore, the appellants are left with no option but to approach this Court. Our attention has also been invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee, (2014) 16 SCC 38 and it is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the proceeding seeking eviction of tenant from the waqf property is not covered by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and therefore, the appellants ought not to have been granted the liberty to join in the proceeding which is pending for eviction, which even otherwise, is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. It is submitted that in any case the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be modified.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Waqf Board has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Realising the difficulty that the challenge to the notification involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be gone into in a writ proceeding, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the appellants be granted the liberty to approach the appropriate forum with regard to their grievance.

8. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides.

9. The Supreme Court in Faseela M. (supra) has held that the proceeding for eviction of a tenant from the waqf property is not covered either under Section 6 or Section 7 of the Act and the suit for eviction is triable by the civil Court. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has granted the liberty to the app