MEHVISH ADIL Vs. DELHI WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter "Waqf Act ") is a special enactment which is meant to provide for the better administration of Waqfs, including the property which vests in Waqfs. The Waqf Act has been enacted for the larger public good to ensure that Waqfs and Waqf-related properties are properly managed and the income derived from the Waqf property is utilized for the larger good of the community.

(2.) A perusal of the scheme of the Waqf Act shows that this statute contemplates the creation of Waqf Boards which, in Delhi, is the Delhi Wakf Board/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter "Waqf Board "). The Waqf Board conducts surveys as per the Waqf Act. Disputes relating to Waqf properties are resolved by the Waqf Tribunal under Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act. The constitution of the Waqf Board is provided for in Chapter IV of the Waqf Act, including the duties and functions of the Waqf Board. One such duty of the Waqf Board is to ensure removal of encroachments from Waqf properties under Sec. 54 of the Waqf Act. Sec. 55 of the Waqf Act further provides that the Executive Magistrate shall take action for the enforcement of such orders made under Sec. 54, in case the occupant against whom eviction orders are issued by the Waqf Board, fails to remove such encroachment.

(3.) The present revision petitions arise out of orders dated 04/10/2019 passed by the Waqf Tribunal/NDD/PHC (hereinafter "Waqf Tribunal ") in ML No.27/2018 titled Mehvish Adil v. Delhi Wakf Board and Ors., in ML No.29/2018 titled Mohd Adil v. Delhi Wakf Board and Ors. and in ML No.28/2018 titled Afroznisha v. Delhi Wakf Board and Ors. Vide the said orders, the applications of Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Mehvish Adil, Mohd. Adil and Afroznisha (hereinafter collectively "Petitioners ") under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC were dismissed. Effectively, the prayer seeking injunction against the Waqf Board from dispossessing the Petitioners, from property being 1068, Ward No.l, Khasra no. 1151/3, Mehrauli, Delhi ad measuring 425 sq. yards (hereinafter "suit property "), was rejected. A brief background of the present proceedings is as below.