2017 (4) TMI 1567 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking cancellation of the sale deed - sum and substance of the Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have purchased the suit property from a private person though the said property is the Wakf property and therefore the sale deed dated 12.1.2013 does not convey any right, title or interest in favour of the Defendants 1 to 5 - HELD THAT - The overall view of various provisions contained in Wakf Act, 1954 and Waqf Act 1995 make it evident that even under 1954 Act, as in 1995 Act, the Survey Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of making survey of wakfs in State. The Survey Commissioner was duty bound to conduct the survey of wakfs in the State and after making such enquiry, as he might consider necessary, would submit his report in respect of Wakfs existing in the State to the State Government with necessary particulars. Copy of the said report would be forwarded by the State to the Wakf Board which in turn would examine the report by applying its mind and thereafter would publish the notification. Whereas under 1995 Act, the Wakf Board after examining the report forwards it back to Government within a period of 6 months for publication in the Official Gazette in the State. Pursuant thereto the State will publish the Gazette notification. The revenue authorities will consequently include the list of Auqaf properties while updating the revenue records under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of 1995 Act. It is amply clear that the conducting of survey by the Survey Commissioner and preparing a report and forwarding the same to the State or the Wakf Board precedes the final act of notifying such list in the official gazette by the State under 1995 Act, (it was by the Board under 1954 Act). Admittedly in the matter on hand, the survey was conducted prior to 1962 and based on such Surveyor's report only, the list was prepared and the same was submitted to State Government, which in turn, was forwarded to Wakf Board, the Wakf Board after examining the report published the list in the official gazette in the year 1962. Hence, Sub-section (1A) of Section 4 also will be of no avail to the Plaintiff - the Tribunal and the High Court, on facts have held that the property in question is not included in the list published in the Official Gazette as a wakf property. Such non-inclusion was never questioned by any person including the Wakf Board. The Board has not exercised jurisdiction Under Section 27 of 1954 Act and Section 40 of 1995 Act, though 50 years have elapsed from the date of the gazette notification. The averments in the plaint do not disclose the cause of action for filing the suit. The suit is manifestly meritless and vexatious - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal.
2. Validity of the sale deed.
3. Notification of the property as Wakf property.
4. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
5. Applicability of Wakf Act provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal:
The appellant argued that the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property was not notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette. The High Court's decision to set aside the Wakf Tribunal's order was challenged on this ground. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal comes into play only if the property is notified as Wakf property, which was not the case here.

2. Validity of the Sale Deed:
The respondent sought cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.1.2013, asserting that the property was Wakf property. The appellant contended that the property was private and validly purchased. The Supreme Court noted that since the property was not notified as Wakf property, the sale deed executed by a private individual was valid.

3. Notification of the Property as Wakf Property:
The respondent claimed that the property was notified in the Official Gazette as Wakf property. However, the Wakf Tribunal and the High Court found that the property in question was not included in the Gazette notification. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the property was not listed as Wakf property, and any dispute regarding non-inclusion should have been raised within one year of the Gazette notification as per Section 6 of the Wakf Act.

4. Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
The appellant filed for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the suit did not disclose any cause of action and was barred by law. The Supreme Court highlighted that the power to reject a plaint is drastic and should be exercised strictly as per the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11. The Court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action since the property was not notified as Wakf property, making the suit manifestly meritless and vexatious.

5. Applicability of Wakf Act Provisions:
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 and 1995, noting that they were almost pari materia. The Court reiterated that the list of Wakf properties should be published in the Official Gazette after due survey and enquiry. Since the property in question was not included in the Gazette notification, the provisions of the Wakf Act regarding disputes and notification did not apply.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Wakf Tribunal's order, allowing the appeal. The Court concluded that the suit was barred by law and did not disclose any cause of action, thus rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision emphasized strict adherence to the procedural requirements for notifying Wakf properties and the jurisdictional limits of the Wakf Tribunal.