2016 (11) TMI 1757 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of Regular First Appeal or Civil Revision or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal - Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court in suit for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against a person who admittedly is a tenant - Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act 1995 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - Sections 6 and 7 of the Act provides for determination of certain disputes regarding wakf properties only by the Wakf Tribunal. But the question arises that after determining the dispute by the Tribunal what remedy is available to the aggrieved party. Sub Section 9 of Section 83 of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise passed by the Tribunal established under the Act. Still it is astonishing that Writ Petitions and Regular First Appeals are being preferred by the aggrieved parties before this Court challenging the decisions rendered by the Tribunals constituted under the Act. It is also not understandable how such appeals or writ petitions are being entertained once there is specific bar in terms of Section 83(9) of the Act that no appeal will lie against the order of the Tribunal - In terms of proviso to Sub Section (9) of Section 83 of the Act any person aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunals can invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus remedy is provided to the aggrieved person by way of filing revision petition and not by the medium of appeal. In a similar case the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case titled as Mohd. Abdul Kareem And Anr. v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board 2004 (2) TMI 743 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in disputes pertaining to Wakfs can be invoked by way of filing revision petition and not by the medium of a writ petition. Whether a suit for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against a person who admittedly is a tenant will lie before the Wakf Tribunal or before the Civil Court? - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in judgment rendered by the Apex Court in FASEELA M. VERSUS MUNNERUL ISLAM MADRASA COMMITTEE AND ORS. 2014 (3) TMI 1224 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held by their Lordships that suit for eviction from wakf property is triable by a civil court and not by the Wakf Tribunal since the Act does not provide determination of dispute of eviction by the Tribunal. Thus the suit for eviction against the tenant in regard to wakf property is triable by the Civil Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the cases in the present form.
2. Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court for eviction and recovery suits.
3. Appropriate remedy for aggrieved parties against Wakf Tribunal orders.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Cases

The primary question addressed was whether the instant cases are maintainable in their present form. The court noted that several appeals and petitions had been filed against the orders of the Wakf Tribunal. The court emphasized that u/s 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, no appeal shall lie against any decision or order of the Wakf Tribunal. Instead, the aggrieved party should file a revision petition in the High Court. Consequently, the court dismissed RFA Nos. 343 of 2008 and 265 of 2011, stating that the appeals were not maintainable. Similarly, the writ petition in LPA No. 210 of 2015 was also dismissed as it sought the same relief already determined by the Wakf Tribunal and upheld by the High Court in a previous appeal.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal vs. Civil Court

The court examined whether suits for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against tenants of Wakf properties fall under the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal or Civil Court. It was determined that such disputes are triable by the Civil Court and not the Wakf Tribunal, as Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act do not encompass eviction disputes. This view was supported by the Apex Court's judgment in Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee, which held that eviction suits are exclusively triable by Civil Courts.

Issue 3: Appropriate Remedy for Aggrieved Parties

The court clarified that u/s 83(9) of the Wakf Act, the remedy available to aggrieved parties against the orders of the Wakf Tribunal is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, not through appeals or writ petitions. The court referred to the case of M/s. Indian Technomac Company Ltd. v. State of H.P. and others, which reiterated this position. Consequently, the petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution were directed to be re-diarized as Civil Revisions.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for aggrieved parties is to file revision petitions against the orders of the Wakf Tribunal. The suits for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against tenants of Wakf properties are to be filed in Civil Courts. The appeals and writ petitions filed in the present form were dismissed as not maintainable, with directions for re-diarizing certain petitions as Civil Revisions.