DEVKI NANDAN PATHAK Vs. JUMMA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), challenging the judgment and order dated 22/02/2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) in case No.15 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent-applicant, granting the permanent injunction in respect of the property in question and declaring the sale deed dated 31/01/1997 executed in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 by the petitioner No.5 as null and void.

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent No.1-applicant had filed the application being case No.15/1999 under Section 83 of the said Act seeking relief of permanent injunction against the petitioners-non-applicants before the Tribunal for restraining them from taking forcible possession of the property situated at Masjid Kodiyawali, Barpada, Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises), and from putting up any construction thereon, and causing any obstruction to the persons offering Namaj at the suit premises, and in the alternative seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 31/1/1997 executed by the petitioner No.5 in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 was null and void. It was alleged inter-alia in the said application that the suit property was the wakf property as registered with the Rajasthan Wakf Board and was being used as part of the Masjid where the people used to offer Namaj, and the students used to study; that on 3/5/1998, the petitioners-non-applicants suddenly tried to take forcible possession of the suit premises and put up construction thereon. It was further alleged that on the enquiry made by the respondent-applicant, it was found that the petitioner No.5 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 on 31/01/1997 in respect of the part of the property of the said Masjid, and therefore, the application was filed. It was also alleged that the applicant was the Muttavali of the said Masjid and was also offering Namaj there, and therefore he had right to file the application. The said application was resisted by the petitioners-non-applicants by filing their reply contending inter-alia that the suit property was not registered as the wakf property with the Rajasthan Wakf Board, and that the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 had become the owners of the suit premises by virtue of the sale deed dated 31/01/1997. It was also contended that the respondent applicant did not have the authority to file the suit, and that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved in the suit. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, allowed the said application/case vide the judgment and order dated 22/02/2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the application filed under Section 83 of the said Act, under which any mutawalli or any other person aggrieved by the order made under the said Act or the Rules could make the application before the Tribunal. According to Mr. Rastogi, there being no order passed by any authority under the said Act, and the respondent being not the Muttavali the application filed by him under Section 83 was not maintainable. Placing heavy reliance on the provisions contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act, he submitted that the dispute raised in the application being not the dispute covered under Sections 6 or 7, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. According to Mr. Rastogi as per the provisions contained in Section 32 of the said Act, it was for the wakf board only to take necessary action to institute or defend the suits or the proceedings relating to the wakfs and not by the person, who is not the mutawalli. Mr. Rastogi has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf,2011 1 WLC(SC)CVL 117 and, in case of T.N. Wakf Board vs. Hathija Ammal (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., 2001 8 SCC 528 in support of his submissions.