Delhi District Court
Dr. Nisar Ahmed vs Govt Of Nct on 13 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA: CIVIL JUDGE : 03
CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Suit No. 361/14
Unique ID No.
Dr. Nisar Ahmed,
S/o Late Mohd. Abid,
R/o 46, Zakir Bagh,
New Delhi.
.......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Govt of NCT, Delhi.
2. Chief Settlement Commissioner
(E.P. Cell), Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Land & Building Department,
CBlock, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Abdul Khalique
S/o Late Abdul Rauf,
R/o 2244, Ground Floor,
Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
4. Sh. Abdul Malik,
S/o Late Abdul Rauf,
R/o 2239, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 1/5
5. Mohd. Haroon,
S/o Late Abdul Rauf,
R/o 2239, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
6. Sh. Javed Akhtar,
S/o Late Abdul Rauf,
R/o 2244, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
7. Sh. Anjum Pervez,
S/o Late Abdul Rauf,
R/o 2239, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
8. Mohd. Anwar,
S/o Late Mohd. Deen,
R/o 2238, Naya Mohalla, Gali Qasim Jan,
Ballmaran, Delhi110007.
9. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed,
S/o Late Sh. Mohammed Abid,
R/o D10, Nizamuddin West,
New Delhi.
10. Sh. Firoz Ahmed,
S/o Late Sh. Mohammed Abid,
R/o 6853, Gali Fatehpur Wali,
Beriwala Bagh, Delhi110006.
11. Sh. Mumtaz Ahmed,
S/o Late Sh. Mohammed Abid,
R/o 76, Johri Farm,
New Delhi110006.
Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 2/5
12. Sh. Naeem Abid,
S/o Late Sh. Mohammed Abid,
R/o 2339, Naya Mohalla,
Gali Qasim Jan, Delhi110006.
13. Mohd. Naseem,
S/o Late Abdul Karim,
R/o B473, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi110006.
14. Mohd. Ahmed,
S/o Late Abdul Karim,
R/o L3, Sailing Club Road, Near masjid,
KhalilUllah, Jamia Nagar,
Okhla, New Delhi.
.........Defendants
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the question whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by provisions of Waqf Act, 1995.
2. In the present matter, perusal of the plaint as filed by the plaintiff reveals that the plaintiff has claimed declaration that the suit property is waqf property and the plaintiff along with defendant no. 9 to 14 are beneficiaries to the same on the basis of registered waqf deed registered as document no. 654, book no.1, volume no. 1224, pages 119 to 145 dated 22.02.1921.
3. The plaintiff has further challenged the sale deed allegedly Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 3/5 executed by the custodian to different persons on the ground that the suit property has been wrongly notified as evacuee property as some of the beneficiaries migrated to Pakistan and since the waqf property can't be declared as evacuee property thus, the custodian has no right to sell the same and consequently, the plaintiff has further claimed recovery of possession of the suit property and permanent injunction.
4. During the course of arguments, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit is maintainable and in support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on AIR 2008 (NOC) 1178 (KER.), Thayyil Kunhimohammed Haji and others Vs. Darul Huda Islamic Academy but, perusal of the judgment as relied by the plaintiff reveals that in the same, it was mentioned that enlistment of property U/s 5 of Waqf Act and registration U/s 40 (1) by Waqf Board are pre condition for invoking the jurisdiction of tribunal, but perusal of the said case further reveals that the jurisdiction for deciding the question of enlistment and registration was given to the Waqf Board and consequently the same does not give the jurisdiction to Civil Court to decide the said questions.
5. Further, the second judgment as relied by the plaintiff i. e. (2010) 8 Sec 726 Ramesh Govind Ram Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case as the same is regarding the eviction of the tenant from the waqf property Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 4/5 and para no. 20 of the same reveals that it was specifically mentioned that whether the property is a waqf property, the determination of the same is specifically within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
6. Lastly, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the decision i.e (2014) SCCR 502, Faseela M. Vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and other, but the same is also with regards to the eviction of a tenant from waqf property.
7. Thus, none of the judgments as relied by the plaintiff are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. And since the relief of possession, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction are dependent upon or consequential relief to the relief of declaration that the suit property is a waqf property and the plaintiff along with defendant no. 9 to 14 are beneficiaries to the same and the said declaration is specifically enumerated in classes of suits which are exclusively triable by Waqf Tribunal U/s 6 (1), (5) of Waqf Act, 1995. Thus, the present suit as filed by the plaintiff is specifically barred by the provisions of section 85 of Waqf Act, 1995 and consequently, the plaint of the plaintiff is rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHAMA GUPTA) CIVIL JUDGE03C/THC DELHI /13.08.2014 Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 5/5 CS No.361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors.
13.08.2014 Present: Plaintiff in person.
Vide separate order of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of section 85 of Waqf Act, 1995 and consequently, the plaint of the plaintiff is rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(SHAMA GUPTA) CIVIL JUDGE03C/THC DELHI /13.08.2014 Suit no. 361/14 Dr. Nisar Ahmed Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 6/5