At Kayamkhani Masjid Ke Pass, Hasanpura-A, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Waqf, Through Chief Executive

Ajmer Road, Srinagar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) At Present Residing At Kayamkhani Masjid Ke Pass, Hasanpura-A, Jaipur.

4. Moinuddin S/o Gul Mohammed, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Zindabag Balad Dara, Ajmer Road, Srinagar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) At Present Residing At Kayamkhani Masjid Ke Pass, Hasanpura-A, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Waqf, Through Chief Executive

4. Officer L.k.1, Joyati Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Tehsildaar, Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) District Collector, Ajmer (Rajasthan). Habeeb Shah S/o Ashraf Shah, R/o Zindabag Balad Dara, Ajmer Road, Srinagar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) (Deceased) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naqvi Sehban Najib Sabiha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Date of Judgment :: Judgment 12 /0 This civil miscellaneous application filed by the applicants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) under Section 83(9) of Wakf Act of 1995 against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2024 [2025:RJ-JP:18520] (2 of 5) [CMAP-310/2024] passed by the Wakf Tribunal in suit No.04/2019, whereby the said suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs filed a civil suit against respondent Nos.1 to 3-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) before Wakf Tribunal for declaration, correction of entries & permanent injunction in which it was stated that agricultural land bearing Khasra No.2786 (old number) (new No.3476) measuring 4 Bigha 7 Biswa and old Khasra No.2781 (new No.3471) measuring 7 Bigha 10 Biswa situated in village Srinagar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer was wrongly recorded as Wakf property by the defendants under Section 26 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and the same was wrongly shown in the name of Wakf Board in revenue record in the year 2012. It was also stated that land was recorded as Khatedari land in the name of Gani Shah i.e. grand-father of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 4 in revenue record and after his death same was mutated in favour of his successors including the present plaintiffs. Since then they are in possession of the same and cultivating the land and depositing the land revenue. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be allowed. The defendant(s)-Wakf Board filed written statement and denied the averments made by the plaintiffs and contended that land in dispute was Wakf Land under the Act of 1955 and it was used as graveyard and wrong mutation was opened in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. So, same could not have been considered as agricultural land. So, the present suit be dismissed with cost. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- [2025:RJ-JP:18520] (3 of 5) [CMAP-310/2024] 1- 2- 3- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 dks tfj;s ?kks"k.kk o bUnzkt nq:Lrh o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ vk;k oknhx.k izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 ds fo:) fMØh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknxzLr vkjkth d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk uEcj iqjkuk 2786 u;k [kljk uEcj 3476 jdck 4 ch?kk 7 fcLok o [kljk uEcj iqjkuk 2781 u;k [kljk uEcj 3471 jdck 7 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dks jktLo fjdkMZ o tekcanh esa nq:Lr fd;k tkdj oknhx.k ds uke ntZ vf/kdkjh gS\ vk;k oknhx.k dk okn fe;kn ckgj gS\ To prove their case, plaintiffs examined as PW1-Chhuttan Shah, PW2-Sattar Mohammad, PW3-Taaj Mohammad, PW4- Moinuddin, PW5-Mohammad Saleem, PW6-Kaan Singh and PW7- Jagdish Sain. To prove its case, defendant examined himself as DW1-Sana Siddiqui. None appeared on behalf of the defendant Nos.2 and 3, so, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. After hearing the parties the tribunal vide its order dated

19.06.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that tribunal while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs had not discussed the evidence led by the parties and solely dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that tribunal had to decide the issues framed by him separately, so order of the tribunal deserves to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded to the tribunal to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Gram Panchayat alias Gram Sabha reported in (2000) 2 SCC 121; and (2) Shakeena Bee Vs. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board [2025:RJ-JP:18520] (4 of 5) [CMAP-310/2024] Bhopal through Chief Executive Officer Near Tazul Maszid Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) and Others in Civil Revision No.11 of 2023 decided on 11th December, 2023.” Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that tribunal has rightly held that suit filed by the plaintiffs was time barred because they filed the suit after a lapse of 6 years. So, tribunal rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present application filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Syed Zainul Abedeen Vs. The Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 968. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that tribunal had framed three issues for determination of the suit filed by the plaintiffs but instead of deciding those issues separately, the tribunal solely dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of limitation. So, in my considered opinion, tribunal had to give finding on each of the issues separately after appreciating the evidence led by the parties. So, order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the tribunal deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The tribunal is directed to decide the suit afresh after hearing the [2025:RJ-JP:18520] (5 of 5) [CMAP-310/2024] parties and giving finding on each of the issues separately as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.05.2025. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. AVINASH GULERIA /44 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J