9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (9) TMI 1267 - SUPREME COURT] at quite some length. Besides Ramesh Gobindram, the Court in Bhanwar Lal also considered two other decisions, one, Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Anr. v. Anis Fatma Begum and Anr. [ 2010 (11) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT] and two, Sardar Khan and Ors. v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and Ors. [ 2007 (2) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT] . In Anis Fatma Begum [ 2010 (11) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT] , this Court had held that the Waqf Tribunal constituted Under Section 83 of the Act will have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the questions relating to demarcation of the waqf property. The matter is wholly and squarely covered by Ramesh Gobindram. The suit for eviction against the tenant relating to a waqf property is exclusive triable by the civil court as such suit is not covered by the disputes specified in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed. - R.M. Lodha And Kurian Joseph, JJ. For the Appellant : Hari Kumar G. and A. Venayagam Balan, Advs. For the Respondents : Renjith B. Marar, Bineesh Karat, Sindhu T.P. and P.V. Dinesh, Advs. JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final: Provided that- (a) in the case of the list of auqaf relating to any part of the State and published after the commencement of this Act no such application shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of auqaf; and (b) in the case of the list of auqaf relating to any part of the State and published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, such an application may be entertained by Tribunal within the period of one year from such commencement: Provided further that where any such question has been heard and finally decided by a civil court in a suit instituted before such commencement, the Tribunal shall not re-open such question. (2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of Sub-section (5), no proceeding under this section in respect of any waqf shall be stayed by any court, tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any suit, application or appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, application, appeal or ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction. But due to oversight and mistake it is ordered to return the Plaint. That order is an error apparent on face of records and suo motu reviewed. Call on 30.9.2010. 7. The Appellant filed two revision petitions before the High Court - one, against the order dated 19.09.2010 and the other, for declaration that the Waqf Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. 8. The High Court dismissed both revision petitions and one original petition by the impugned order giving rise to the present Appeals, by special leave. 9. The question, for determination in these appeals, is as to whether the suit for eviction by the landlord against the tenant relating to waqf property is triable by the civil court or the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. 10. For determination of the above question, besides Sections 6 and 7, the two other provisions which deserve to be noticed are Sections 83 and 85 of the Act. These provisions read: Section 83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.- (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, Member; and the appointment of every such person shall be made either by name or by designation. (4A) The terms and conditions of appointment including the salaries and allowances payable to the Chairman and other members other than persons appointed as ex officio members shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (7) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties to the application and it shall have the force of a decree made by a civil court. (8) The execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by the civil court to which such decision is sent for execution in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal: Provided that a High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisions, one, Board of Wakf, West Bengal and Anr. v. Anis Fatma Begum and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 588 and two, Sardar Khan and Ors. v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 727. In Anis Fatma Begum (2010) 14 SCC 588, this Court had held that the Waqf Tribunal constituted Under Section 83 of the Act will have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the questions relating to demarcation of the waqf property. 15. Pertinently, the Court in Bhanwar Lal 2013 (11) SCALE 210 held that the suit for cancellation of sale deed was triable by the civil court. 16. Bhanwar Lal 2013 (11) SCALE 210 follows the line of reasoning in Ramesh Gobindram (2010) 8 SCC 726. The decision of this Court in Bhanwar Lal 2013 (11) SCALE 210 is not in any manner inconsistent or contrary to the view taken by this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (2010) 8 SCC 726. We fully concur with the view of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (2010) 8 SCC 726, particularly with regard to construction put by it upon Sections 83 and 85 of the Act. In Ramesh Gobindram (2010) 8 SCC 726, the Court said: 32. There is, in our view, nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts extends (sic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
