GRAM PANCHAYAT, GUDHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE primary contention of the petitioner is that the property in dispute as notified vide Notification dated 26.1.1991 is not a wakf property. Learned counsel for the respondent says that this dispute cannot be settled under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioner was to file a civil suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act. In support of his contention, he relies on a Supreme Court judgment reported as AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1083 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 11062 of 1994 delivered on August 26, 1994 : 1996 PLJ 669 DB). The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is well-founded on the basis of the above said judgments. Consequently, we are of the view that this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the fact whether a particular property is wakf property or not. Dismissed.