HARYANA WAKF BOARD v. MAHESH KUMAR

agreement dated 2.5.1991 executed by Savitri Devi, widow of Major Ram Prakash in favour of Nirmala Devi for a period of 99 years was bad in law and in turn Nirmala Devi had no right to put the defendant-respondent in possession by executing any lease in his favour. The trial B court also recorded categorical finding that the Wakf Board had by clear, cogent and consistent evidence proved its title over the land in question and it is the Wakf Board which was the actual owner of the suit property. The respondent filed First Appeal before the ADJ, C which held that since in the suit filed by the petitioner Wakf Board, question had arisen as to whether the suit property was Wakf Property or not, such a question could be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act. The appeal court, therefore, returned the D plaint to the petitioner for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction, namely, the Tribunal. The petitioner approached the High Court by way of Regular Second Appeal. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal in limine. E In the instant SLP, the question which arose for consideration was as to whether Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Petitioner Wakf Board. F Dismissing the SLP, the Court HELD: 1.1. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Haryana Wakf Act, 1995, if a question arises, whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of G wakfs is wakf property or not, it is the Tribunal which has to decide such a question and the decision of the tribunal is made final. When such a question is covered under sub-section (1) of Section 7, then obviously the H 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A C jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands excluded to decide such a question in view of specific bar contained in Section 85. As per sub-section (5) of Section 7, if a suit or proceeding is already pending in a Civil Court before the commencement of the Act in question, then such B proceedings before the Civil Court would continue and the Tribunal would not have any jurisdiction. On a conjoint reading of Section 7 and Section 85 of the Haryana Wakf Act, 1995, legal position is summed up as under: i) In respect of the questions/ disputes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 7, exclusive jurisdiction vests with the tribunal, having jurisdiction in relation to such property; (ii) Decision of the tribunal thereon is made final; (iii) The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of any dispute/ question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property for other matter, which is required by or under this Act, to be determined by a tribunal iv) There is however an exception made under Section 7(5) viz., those matters which are already pending before the Civil Court, even if the subject matter is covered under sub section (1) of section 6, the Civil E Court would continue and the tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to determine those matters. [Paras 8, 9] [604-E-H; 605-A-E] 0 F

1.2. The present suit was instituted in the year 2000 i.e. after the Wakf Act came into force. Therefore, the present case is not covered by exception to Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act. Thus, on a plain reading of Section 7 read with section 85 of the Act, it becomes manifest that wherever there is a dispute regarding the nature of the G property, namely whether the suit property is Wakf property or not, it is the Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act, which has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same. [Para 10] [605-E-G] Bhanwar Lal & Anr. vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf H & Ors. 2013 (11) SCALE 210 and Akkode Jumayath Pa/Ii HARYANA WAKF BOARD v. MAHESH KUMAR 599 Paripalana Committee vs. P. V.lbrahim Haji & Ors. 2013 (9) A SCALE 622 - relied on.