Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of whether a property is a Wakf property or not. Such a question can only be adjudicated upon by the Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, 1995.

FINAL ORDER :

1. By these petitions filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the compromise award dated 23rd November, 2013 passed in Lok Adalat between the Respondents. As common issues are raised, the Petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The challenge to the compromise decree of Lok Adalat is on the ground that the properties forming part of the compromise decree are Wakf properties and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 and as such fraud has been played upon the Court. Petitioner is the daughter of the Respondent No 2, now deceased and sister of Respondent No 1, 3 to 5. For reasons stated hereinafter, I am not inclined to set aside the compromise decree as the Petitioner has failed to substantiate that the subject properties are Wakf properties.

2. Facts of the case are as under :

R.C.S. No. 323 of 2013, R.C.S. No. 332 of 2013 , R.C.S. No.334 of 2013 and R.C.S. No. 333 of 2013 came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 seeking declaration that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the suit land bearing land Sy. No. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4 admeasuring 0H 28R (05R land out of each Sy. No. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3 and 13R land out of land Sy. No. 9/4 total 28R situated at village Nideban, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur and land Sy. No. 228/1/1 admeasuring 0H 35R L.R.S. of Rs. 00.75 paise situated at proper Udgir, Tq Udgir, Dist. Latur as per the boundaries mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint and also for injunction restraining the defendants therein from obstructing the peaceful possession of the Respondent No 1 over the suit land. The Respondent No 1 claimed that the suit property was gifted by Respondent No 2 and pursuant thereto the Respondent No 1 is in actual physical possession of the suit land.

3. On 23rd November, 2013 compromise terms were entered into before the Lok Adalat, wherein the Respondent No. 1 was held entitled to 0H 28R in respect of land Sy. No. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4 and 0H 35R in land Sy. No. 228/1/1, that there was oral gift, that other property of Respondent No 2 has been orally gifted to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and that Respondent No. 2 has five married daughters and out of land Sy. No. 9/4 and out of land Sy. No. 228/1/1, each daughter has been given a plot admeasuring 02R. It was also recorded that the respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 will not interfere in the possession of each others properties.

4. Petitioner herein challenged the compromise decree in R.C.S. No. 393 of 2020, R.C.S. No. 392 of 2020, R.C.S. No. 394 of 2020 and R.C.S. No. 395 of 2020 seeking declaration that the compromise decree dated 23rd November, 2013 may be declared as null, void, fraudulent, ineffective, nonest and not binding on the petitioner and for setting it aside and also for an order of injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from creating third party interest in respect of the property mentioned in para No. 2 i. e. land bearing Sy. No. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3 and 9/4 admeasuring 0H 28R and land Sy. No. 228/1/1 adm. 0H 35R. An application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected by the Trial Court, against which the petitioner preferred miscellaneous civil appeal, which came to be partly allowed by the Appellate Court, whereby the Appellate Court restrained the respondents from alienating or creating third party rights only in respect of one of the suit properties namely land Sy. Nos. 9/1 to 9/4, but not in respect of other suit property bearing land Sy. No. 228/1/1. As against the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7855 of 2021 to the extent of refusal of injunction in respect of land Sy. No. 228/1/1 and similarly the respondents also filed writ petition to the extent of injunction granted in respect of land Sy. Nos. 9/1 to 9/4. Writ Petition filed by petitioner came to be dismissed and Writ Petitio