2006 (10) TMI 469 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit Filed for a declaration that the orders passed by the Board are null and void and for recovery of possession of the suit property - Application u/s 25 of the Wakf Act, 1954 ( the 1954 Act ) for registering the Dargah as a Wakf - barred by limitation - private parties application for recall of the order was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board ( the Board ) - power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs - HELD THAT - The property was dedicated to the Dargah, if any, a long time back. An application for registration of the said property as a Wakf property in terms of Section 25 of the 1954 Act, therefore, could have been filed only within the period specified thereunder, viz., nine months from the date of coming into force of the said Act. Registration of Wakfs whether created before or after the commencement of the said Act is governed by Section 25. A copy of the Wakf deed was also required to be enclosed with such an application. Sub- section (7) of Section 25 of the 1954 Act provides for making of an inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the said application. Title to a property has a definite connotation. It is not the same as user. The Tribunal failed to deal with the question as to whether the Board had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Munna Bai being barred by limitation, insofar as whereas period of limitation provided for under sub-section (8) of Section 25 is merely three months, Munna Bai filed an application after 12 years after coming into force of the 1954 Act. We are not unmindful of the fact that the Board itself could have initiated proceedings in terms of Section 27 of the 1954 Act but then no suo motu proceeding was initiated by it. No notice in this behalf has been issued. If the proceeding was initiated by the Board for which it had no jurisdiction whatsoever, its order would be 'coram non judice'. Unfortunately, the attention of the Tribunal or the High Court was not drawn to this aspect of the matter. If the property in question was not a Wakf property and the order registering the property as a Wakf property was invalid in law, the matter might have ended there. But, the Tribunal has gone a step further and directed framing of scheme. The Tribunal had been constituted for the purposes mentioned in Section 83 of the 1995 Act. It is an adjudicatory body. Its decision is final and binding but then it could not usurp the jurisdiction of the Board. Our attention has not been drawn to any provision which empowers the Tribunal to frame a scheme. In absence of any power vested in the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have left the said function to the Board which is statutorily empowered therefor. Where a statute creates different authorities to exercise their respective functions thereunder, each of such authority must exercise the functions within the four corners of the statute. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. We direct accordingly. Orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside. The appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. The Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from date.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property in question is a Wakf property.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to frame a scheme for managing the Dargah.
3. Validity of the application for registration of the Dargah as Wakf.
4. Whether the application filed by Munna Bai was barred by limitation.
5. Whether the High Court erred in its judgment regarding the admission of the private parties.
6. Whether the Board had the authority to initiate proceedings for registration of the property as Wakf.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the property in question is a Wakf property:
The Tribunal declared the properties as Wakf property and registered the Dargah as Wakf by an order dated 18.3.1968. The private parties disputed this, contending that the property was not a Wakf property and that Munna Bai filed the application due to being denied the post of Mujjawarship. The High Court dismissed the applications, noting the admission by the private parties that they were not averse to the property being declared Wakf if they were declared Mujawar thereof. However, the Tribunal failed to deal with the question of whether the Board had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Munna Bai, considering it was barred by limitation.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to frame a scheme for managing the Dargah:
The Tribunal framed a scheme for managing the affairs of the Dargah, which was challenged by both the Board and the private parties. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, it was contended that the power to frame a scheme vests in the Board and not in the Tribunal. The Tribunal is an adjudicatory body and does not have the authority to frame a scheme, which is a function statutorily vested in the Board under Section 32 of the 1995 Act.

3. Validity of the application for registration of the Dargah as Wakf:
The application for registration was filed under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, which mandates that such applications must be filed within nine months from the date of the Act's commencement. The application by Munna Bai was filed 12 years after the Act came into force, raising questions about its validity and whether it was barred by limitation.

4. Whether the application filed by Munna Bai was barred by limitation:
The Tribunal and the High Court did not adequately address whether the application filed by Munna Bai was barred by limitation. The period of limitation provided under sub-section (8) of Section 25 is three months, and the application was filed significantly later. This oversight raises questions about the legality of the registration order.

5. Whether the High Court erred in its judgment regarding the admission of the private parties:
The High Court's judgment was based on the purported admission by the private parties that the property was a Wakf property if they were declared Mujawar. However, this admission was conditional and did not clearly admit the nature of the property being Wakf. The Tribunal's reliance on this conditional admission was flawed, as an admission must be clear and explicit to infer title.

6. Whether the Board had the authority to initiate proceedings for registration of the property as Wakf:
The Board has the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the 1954 Act. However, no suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Board in this case. The Tribunal and the High Court did not consider whether the Board had the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Munna Bai, given the significant delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh. The Tribunal is to determine the issues within three months, considering the jurisdictional and procedural aspects highlighted. Each party is to bear its own costs.