Mohammad Arif And 2 Others v. Revisionist(s) Waqf Wazir Ahmad Waqf No.-7, Lucknow, Through Muttawalli Ahmad Nazir Alvi And 3

1. Heard Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Mohd Saeed learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel on behalf of respondent-Waqf Board.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the respondent no.1 is a Waqf in question and had instituted a suit for permanent injunction before Waqf Tribunal seeking a relief in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendants nos.1 to 5 of the suit from changing the nature of the property by raising any construction or creating any third party rights.

3. The core contention and the basis of the suit filed by the respondent no.1 lies in the fact that two sale deeds were executed in favour of the revisionists which is contrary to Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is also the premise of the respondent no.1 that the Waqf Board has initiated proceedings under Section 52 of the Act, 1995 and in the aforesaid backdrop where the sale deed itself is void ab initio in terms of Section 51 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner/revisionists had no right to raise constructions or change the nature of property or to create third party rights.

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that along with the suit an application for 2 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 injunction was also moved which was allowed by the Waqf Tribunal by means of the order dated 13.09.2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo.

5. The revisionists assailed the said order primarily on the ground that there is no challenge to the sale deed and in absence thereof, any challenge, if at all would be before the civil court and the Waqf Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the sale deeds. Since, there is no challenge to the sale deed, the rights conferred on the revisionists in that light cannot be hampered and, moreover, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained before the Waqf Tribunal and if at all there is any grievance that stems from the challenge to the sale deed then it can only be made before the civil court and in the aforesaid circumstances where the Tribunal did not have the right to entertain the suit then for the some reason an order for injunction also could not have been passed and to the aforesaid extent, the impugned order is bad.

6. Sri Mohd. Saeed learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has urged that after the sale deeds were executed, the Board had taken action by initiating proceedings under Section 51 and 52 of the Waqf Act. It has also been pointed out that an appeal is pending before the Waqf Tribunal bearing Appeal no.01 of 2023 wherein the Waqf Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2023 has stayed the operation of the order passed under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

7. Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel for the Board did not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. In light of the aforesaid contentions, the position as obtained in law is that the basic premise upon which the suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 is that the Board has passed an order under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1995 treating the sale deed in favour of the revisionists as void ab initio.

9. Be that as it may, the facts still remains that the order of the Board stands stayed in terms of the order 24.02.2023 in Appeal no.01 of 2023. Once the order stands stayed, there is no cloud over the sale deeds of the revisionists. Since, the issue is already seized with the Waqf Tribunal 3 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 where not only the suit for injunction which has been filed by the respondent no.1 is pending but even the Appeal no.1 of 2023 is pending wherein at the behest of the revisionists, the order under Section 52 has been stayed.

10. This Court also takes note of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2024 which reads as under: "1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Farhan Habib, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2024 whereby, in a suit filed by the respondent no.1, parties were directed to maintain status quo. The plaint in question filed by the respondent no.1 is founded on the ground that the property purchased by the petitioners herein and the dependents to the suit through sale deed dated 11.04.1991 were without seeking the consent and were illegal and unlawful. No relief for cancellation of the sale deed was sought. In the plaint, only an injunction was sought. The authority under the Waqf Act proceeded to pass an injunction without even considering the relief as claimed in the plaint.

3. In view of the relief sought in the plaint, prima facie, the order impugned does not appear to be a correct exercise of power.

4. Issue notice.

5. Steps be taken to serve the opposite parties no.1 to 4 within a week.

6. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

7. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

8. Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Waqf Board shall remain stayed.

9. The petitioner shall not create any third party right over the property in question."

11. Since, this Court had already protected and preserved the property by directing the revisionists not to create any third party rights, in the given facts and circumstances and as the matter is yet to be decided on merits by the Tribunal, hence, this Court is of the view that all the issues are left open to be considered by the Tribunal and till such time the appeal and the suit is decided the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.11.2024 directing the revisionists from not creating any third party rights over the property in question shall remain in operation which shall be subject to final outcome of the appeal and the suit to be decided 4 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 by the Waqf Tribunal.

12. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed its opinion on merits and all pleas shall be considered and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law and as per evidence on record as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

13. With the aforesaid, the revision is disposed of. November 15, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.)

1. Heard Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Mohd Saeed learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel on behalf of respondent-Waqf Board.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the respondent no.1 is a Waqf in question and had instituted a suit for permanent injunction before Waqf Tribunal seeking a relief in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendants nos.1 to 5 of the suit from changing the nature of the property by raising any construction or creating any third party rights.

3. The core contention and the basis of the suit filed by the respondent no.1 lies in the fact that two sale deeds were executed in favour of the revisionists which is contrary to Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is also the premise of the respondent no.1 that the Waqf Board has initiated proceedings under Section 52 of the Act, 1995 and in the aforesaid backdrop where the sale deed itself is void ab initio in terms of Section 51 of the Act, 1995, the petitioner/revisionists had no right to raise constructions or change the nature of property or to create third party rights.

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that along with the suit an application for 2 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 injunction was also moved which was allowed by the Waqf Tribunal by means of the order dated 13.09.2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo.

5. The revisionists assailed the said order primarily on the ground that there is no challenge to the sale deed and in absence thereof, any challenge, if at all would be before the civil court and the Waqf Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the sale deeds. Since, there is no challenge to the sale deed, the rights conferred on the revisionists in that light cannot be hampered and, moreover, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained before the Waqf Tribunal and if at all there is any grievance that stems from the challenge to the sale deed then it can only be made before the civil court and in the aforesaid circumstances where the Tribunal did not have the right to entertain the suit then for the some reason an order for injunction also could not have been passed and to the aforesaid extent, the impugned order is bad.

6. Sri Mohd. Saeed learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has urged that after the sale deeds were executed, the Board had taken action by initiating proceedings under Section 51 and 52 of the Waqf Act. It has also been pointed out that an appeal is pending before the Waqf Tribunal bearing Appeal no.01 of 2023 wherein the Waqf Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2023 has stayed the operation of the order passed under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1995.

7. Sri Farhan Habib learned counsel for the Board did not dispute the aforesaid fact.

8. In light of the aforesaid contentions, the position as obtained in law is that the basic premise upon which the suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 is that the Board has passed an order under Section 52 of the Waqf Act, 1995 treating the sale deed in favour of the revisionists as void ab initio.

9. Be that as it may, the facts still remains that the order of the Board stands stayed in terms of the order 24.02.2023 in Appeal no.01 of 2023. Once the order stands stayed, there is no cloud over the sale deeds of the revisionists. Since, the issue is already seized with the Waqf Tribunal 3 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 where not only the suit for injunction which has been filed by the respondent no.1 is pending but even the Appeal no.1 of 2023 is pending wherein at the behest of the revisionists, the order under Section 52 has been stayed.

10. This Court also takes note of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2024 which reads as under: "1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Farhan Habib, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2024 whereby, in a suit filed by the respondent no.1, parties were directed to maintain status quo. The plaint in question filed by the respondent no.1 is founded on the ground that the property purchased by the petitioners herein and the dependents to the suit through sale deed dated 11.04.1991 were without seeking the consent and were illegal and unlawful. No relief for cancellation of the sale deed was sought. In the plaint, only an injunction was sought. The authority under the Waqf Act proceeded to pass an injunction without even considering the relief as claimed in the plaint.

3. In view of the relief sought in the plaint, prima facie, the order impugned does not appear to be a correct exercise of power.

4. Issue notice.

5. Steps be taken to serve the opposite parties no.1 to 4 within a week.

6. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

7. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

8. Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Waqf Board shall remain stayed.

9. The petitioner shall not create any third party right over the property in question."

11. Since, this Court had already protected and preserved the property by directing the revisionists not to create any third party rights, in the given facts and circumstances and as the matter is yet to be decided on merits by the Tribunal, hence, this Court is of the view that all the issues are left open to be considered by the Tribunal and till such time the appeal and the suit is decided the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.11.2024 directing the revisionists from not creating any third party rights over the property in question shall remain in operation which shall be subject to final outcome of the appeal and the suit to be decided 4 CLRE No. 68 of 2024 by the Waqf Tribunal.

12. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed its opinion on merits and all pleas shall be considered and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law and as per evidence on record as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

13. With the aforesaid, the revision is disposed of. November 15, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.)