9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1698 - SC - Indian LawsWaqf suit instituted by the petitioner before one member Waqf Tribunal held to be not maintainable - disputes in respect of waqf property - whether till a three member tribunal is constituted by the State Government by issuing notification one member tribunal as constituted under 1995 Act shall continue functioning or it ceases to have any jurisdiction to entertain disputes and decide it in accordance with the provisions of Act? - Held that - Learned senior counsel appearing for the Wakf Board, has rightly contended that the intention of the Parliament while substituting Section 83(4) is not that one member tribunal vanishes or ceases to exist till a three member tribunal is constituted. Intention to bring new sub-section (4) in Section 83 is nothing but improvement in the constitution of the Tribunal and both the earlier and the substituted sub-sections are not inconsistent with each other. Having regard to the law discussed hereinbefore and giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we are of the definite opinion that the High Court has committed serious error of law in holding that after the Amendment Act, 2013 came into force, the one member Tribunal exercising jurisdiction ceased to exist even though a fresh notification constituting three member Tribunal has not been notified. The High Court further erred in law in directing the Civil Court to decide the disputes in respect of waqf property.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of One Member Waqf Tribunal post-amendment. 2. Validity of interim orders passed by One Member Tribunal. 3. Applicability of doctrine of implied repeal. 4. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation regarding tribunal constitution. 5. State Government's duty to constitute a Three Member Tribunal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of One Member Waqf Tribunal Post-Amendment: The primary issue was whether the One Member Waqf Tribunal retained jurisdiction to entertain and decide disputes after the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013, which mandated the constitution of a Three Member Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the One Member Tribunal continues to function until the State Government issues a notification constituting a Three Member Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was not to create a vacuum in the tribunal's functioning due to the State's inaction in constituting the new tribunal. 2. Validity of Interim Orders Passed by One Member Tribunal: The High Court had refused to interfere with the interim order of injunction passed by the One Member Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the Tribunal did not err in granting the ad-interim order and that the interim order should continue until the plaint is presented to the civil court. The Court noted that the question of whether the suit properties are waqf properties is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence. 3. Applicability of Doctrine of Implied Repeal: The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the amendment impliedly repealed the jurisdiction of the One Member Tribunal. The Court clarified that implied repeal is not readily inferred and that both the original and amended provisions of Section 83(4) can coexist. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that implied repeal occurs only when the new law is totally inconsistent with the old law and both cannot stand together. 4. Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation Regarding Tribunal Constitution: The Court examined the legislative intent behind the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013, which aimed to expand the composition of the tribunal for better administration of waqf properties. The Court concluded that the amendment was intended to improve the tribunal's functioning and did not imply that the One Member Tribunal should cease to exist until the new tribunal is constituted. The Court emphasized that the legislature's failure to provide a transitory provision indicates that the existing tribunal should continue. 5. State Government's Duty to Constitute a Three Member Tribunal: The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the State Governments' failure to issue notifications constituting the Three Member Tribunal as mandated by the amended Section 83(4). The Court directed the States to take immediate steps to constitute the tribunal and issue notifications within four months. The Court underscored that parties should not suffer due to the State's inaction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, except the one challenging the interim order, and set aside the High Court's judgment that had divested the One Member Tribunal of its jurisdiction. The Court directed the States to comply with the statutory mandate to constitute a Three Member Tribunal and ensured the continuation of the interim order until the civil court's adjudication.
|
