Haryana Wakf Board vs Parkasho Devi and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh whereby application moved by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC (in short "the CPC") for rejection of plaint or return of plaint on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of civil court, has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed suit claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land on the basis of entries in the revenue records and claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession in the plot measuring 485 square yards in khasra No. 10/1 and further restraining the petitioner-defendant from creating any fresh lease or mortgage for the purpose of dispossessing the respondents or for the purpose of defeating their valuable rights in the plot. Upon notice, the petitioner through counsel put in appearance and moved the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for return of plaint or rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the application, the stand has been taken that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred u/s 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short "the Act"). The said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.12.2012. Hence, the present revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has fallen in error while passing the impugned order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf 2010 AIR (SC) 2897 and Board of Wakf, West Bengal Vs. Anis Fatma Begum and Another,

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Before proceed further, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions laid down u/s 85 of the Act which read as under:

Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.

A plain reading of the above provision shows that the Civil Court''s jurisdiction is excluded only in cases where the matter in dispute is required to be determined by the Tribunal. The words "which is required by or under this Act to be determined by Tribunal" hold the key to the question whether or not all disputes concerning the wakf or wakf property stand excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Whenever a question arises whether "any dispute, question or other matter" relating to "any wakf or wakf property or other matter" falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court the answer would depend upon whether any such dispute, question or other matter is required under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act. Section 85 of the Act clearly shows that only those questions which the Tribunal can determine are barred. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs (supra) has held as under:

In the cases at hand the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed.

Since it is a case where the relief of injunction has been sought on the basis of entries in the revenue records and it is not made out from the pleadings that the present case falls under the definition of Sections 6(5), 7 and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 21.12.2012. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Dismissed in limine.