Patna High Court
Imteyaz Ahmad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 November, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15106 of 2009
===========================================================
1. Imteyaz Ahmad S/O Late Sk. Eayat Karim R/O Bettaih Town, Mohalla Ganj
No.1,P.S. Bettiah Town , Distt- West Champaran
2. Neyaz Ahmad S/O Late Sk. Enayat Karim R/O Bettaih Town, Mohalla Ganj
No.1,P.S. Bettiah Town , Distt- West Champaran
3. Ishteyaque Ahmad(Advocate) S/O Late Mushtaque Ahmad R/O Bettaih Town,
Mohalla Ganj No.1,P.S. Bettiah Town , Distt- West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board Through The Chief Executive Officer, Null
Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, Patna-1
2. The Chief Executive Officer Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, Patna -1
3. The State Of Bihar, Through Chief Seecretary Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7574 of 2010
===========================================================
1. Imteyaz Ahmad S/O Late Enayat Karim R/O Vill.- Bettiah Town, Mohalla Ganj
No. 1, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
2. Neyaz Ahmad S/O Late Enayat Karim R/O Vill.- Bettiah Town, Mohalla Ganj
No. 1, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
3. Ishteyaque Ahmad S/O Late Mushtaque Ahmad R/O Vill.- Bettiah Town,
Mohalla Ganj No. 1, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. Mohammad Ketabuddin S/O Late Abdul Sakoor R/O Mohalla- Ganj No. 1, P.S.
Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
3. Arshad Zaman S/O Late Abdul Samad R/O Mohalla Ganj No. 2, Near Ii An Ram
Chowk, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
4. Mohammad Aslam S/O Nayeem Mian R/O Mohalla Ganj No.1, Near Madarsa
Islamia, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
5. Aftab Alam @ Shiblia Azad S/O Late Md. Quadir R/O Mohalla Ganj No.1
Behind Bari Masjid, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt.- West Champaran
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No. 15106 of 2009)
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh,
AC to SC-15
(In CWJC No. 7574 of 2010)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. MANAN KUMAR MISHRA, Sr. Advocate
2/9
For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Md. Abu Haidar, Adv.
For the Waqf Board : Rashid Izhar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vevekanand Singh, AC to GA-8
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, GA-8
For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP5)
Dated: 11th day of November, 2014
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
1. Both the above-said writ petitions relate to plot No. 3638, Ward No. 16 situated at Bettiah Town, Mohalla-Ganj, P.S. Bettiah Town, District-West Champaran and the questions, involved in both the writ petitions, are almost similar in nature and therefore, a common judgment is being passed in the above- said writ petitions.
2. Petitioners preferred CWJC No. 15106 of 2006 for quashing the Notice Nos. 855 to 857 dated 20-05-2009, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Estate Sunni Waqf Board u/S 54 of Waqf Act, 1995 by which, the petitioners have been asked to explain as to why an order for removal of their houses, standing over plot No. 3638, be not passed. Similarly, petitioners have preferred CWJC No. 7574 of 2010 for quashing the order dated 26-02-2010//// passed by Sub Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No. 278 of 2008 by which, the learned Sub Judge passed the order for transfer of above-said Title Suit No. 278 of 2008 to the Waqf Tribunal, Bihar.
3. To appreciate the points involved in this case, it is essential to narrate the facts, in brief, which runs as follows:-
One, Maharani Janki Kuar was the proprietor of Bettiah Estate in whose name, the Khewat No. 1 was prepared. The ancestor of petitioners was an employee of Bettiah Raj and he was allowed by Bettiah Raj to occupy 17 Dhurs 3/9 of land out of Municipal Plot No. 3638 in the year, 1901. The Bettiah Raj got constructed a Mosque, named as Jama Maszid over Municipal Plot No. 3639 and local people used some portion of plot No. 3638 to go to the aforesaid mosque. The municipal plot No. 3639 and Municipal plot No. 3638 have separate identity and Bettiah Estate never allowed to amalgamate Municipal plot No. 3638 with Municipal plot No. 3639 nor the Municipal plot No. 3638 was ever settled to any mosque. The ancestor of petitioners was also trusted by the Bettiah Estate to keep the records of mosque, without any remuneration. The case of the petitioners is that sometime in the year, 1919-20, 7 Dhurs of plot No. 3638 was settled to ancestor of petitioners by Bettiah Raj and thereafter, ancestor of petitioners got constructed tilted house over the aforesaid land and since then, petitioners have been coming in possession of the aforesaid land. The ancestor of petitioners died in the year 1958 and, thereafter, a pucca house was constructed by the petitioners on the above-said land but unfortunately, some persons started creating nuisance in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the above-said area of plot No. 3638 and, thereafter, petitioners filed Title Suit No. 278 of 2008 against those persons in civil court. One of the defendants of the aforesaid suit filed written statement, claiming that the disputed property belongs to mosque. In the above-said suit, a pleader commissioner was appointed who inspected the place of occurrence and found pucca house on the disputed land but during pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondent No. 2 issued impugned notices contained at Annexure-3 series to the writ petition. Further case of the petitioners is that Municipal plot No. 3638 was never a Waqf property and only Municipal plot No. 3639 was registered as Waqf property.
4. In Title Suit No. 278 of 2008, a petition on behalf of the defendants of the aforesaid suit was filed u/S 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 praying 4/9 therein that the aforesaid suit was not maintainable as Section-85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 bars jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit, regarding the Waqf property. The case of the respondents is that the property, in question, belongs to Waqf Board and as a matter of fact, one Most. Parwa created Waqf in respect of plot No. 3638 measuring one Katha 9 Dhurs along with other properties and the said Waqf was registered in the Waqf register and numbered as 415 as Ramjan Ali Waqf Estate, Bettiah Raj which is evident from perusal of Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit. Further case of the respondents is that the property, in question, is part of Badi Maszid of the Bettiah Town, which was constructed in the year 1870 and the grandfather of the petitioners was record keeper as well as Muazzim. Further case of the respondents is that the then Managing Committee of the Badi Maszid gave him an accommodation in the outer house of the Maszid for use as Mujra for Muazzim or Imam and the property, in question, was never settled by Bettiah Estate with ancestor of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel, appearing for petitioners submits that property, in question, belongs to the petitioners and the aforesaid property is not a Waqt property and, therefore, issuance of notice u/S 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 is illegal and without jurisdiction. He, further submits that according to Section-4 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the State Government shall appoint a Survey Commissioner as well as Additional Survey Commissioner of Waqf for the purpose of making a survey of Waqf, existing in the State of Bihar on the date of commencement of the aforesaid Act and after inquiry, the above-said Survey Commissioners shall submit their report in respect of Waqf, and any dispute in respect of nature of the Waqf shall be decided by the above-said Commissioners. He further submits that Section-5 of the above-said Act makes a provision that a list of Waqf shall be published in official gazette and furthermore, Section-6 of the aforesaid Act says 5/9 that if, any question arises where a particular property specified as Waqf property in the list of waqfs is waqf property or not or where a waqf, specified in such list is a Shia waqf or Sunni waqf, the Board or the Mutawalli of the waqt or any person, interested therein, may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal, in respect of such matter, shall be final. He further submits that the property, in dispute, has never been shown in the list of waqfs and, therefore, it cannot be said that the property, in question, is not a waqf property and when the property, in question, is not waqf property, no notice u/S 54 of the Waqt Act, 1995 can be issued. In support of his contention, he referred decision of Subrat Shankar Bhaduri & Ors. Vs The Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board & Ors. Reported in 1976 BBCJ 274 wherein this court held that mere mention of the waqf is not sufficient and the property dedicated to the waqf should be entered in the register and if, the property has not been entered into register maintained for waqf properties, the Board has no jurisdiction to issue requisition u/S 36B of the Waqf Act, 1954. He further submits that the petitioner is a stranger to the waqf and he does not come under the ambit of interested person and, therefore, the title of the petitioner, in respect of property in question cannot be decided by the tribunal and the same can only be decided by a competent civil court. In support of his above contention, he referred the decision of Board of Muslim Waqfs, Rajasthan Vs Radha Kishan & Ors. Reported in 1979(2) SCC 468 wherein it has been held by Apex Court of this country that Section 6(1) of Waqf Act, 1954 covers only disputes between the Board, the Mutwalli and any person, interested in the waqf. He also referred the decision of Punjab Waqf Board Vs Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha reported in (2000) 2 SCC 121 wherein it has been held by Apex court that if, dispute is raised between the Waqf Board and a third party, the notification, issued u/S 5(2) of 6/9 Waqf Act does not come in the way of the suit. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, he submitted that petitioners, being strangers to the waqf have got every right to pursue the suit in respect of their right, title and possession before competent civil court and therefore, the learned Sub Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah wrongly and erroneously transferred the title suit No. 278 of 2008 to the Waqf Tribunal, Bihar.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondents refuted the above-said submissions, arguing that after coming into force of the Waqf Act, 1995, only Waqf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide this question as to whether any property is waqf property or not. To fortify his contention, he referred Section-6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and submits that Sub clause (5) of Section-6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 clearly mandates that after commencement of the above-said Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted or commenced in a court, in relation to any question in respect of nature of the waqf property. He relied upon the decision of Board of Waqf Act, West Bengal Vs Anis Fatima Begum & Anr. Reported in 2010(7) Supreme 1059 in which, Apex Court of this country held that all matters pertaining to waqf should be filed in the first instance before the Waqf Tribunal, constituted u/S 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by the civil court or by the High Court straightway under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the plot No. 3638 has been entered in waqf register as it is evident from perusal of Annexure-4/A of counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, if, petitioners want to challenge the nature of the aforesaid plot, they may approach to the Tribunal.
7. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and documents available on the record. 7/9
8. Annexure-4/A of counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 goes to show that plot No. 3638 has been shown as waqf property since 19- 01-1950. The aforesaid register was prepared under Bihar Waqf Act, 1947. Therefore, it cannot be said that the property, in question, had never been entered in waqf register. It is obvious that the Waqf Act, 1995 has been enacted with intent to provide for the better administration of waqfs and for matters, connected therewith or incidental thereto, Section-83 of the Waqf Act 1995 makes a provision for constitution of tribunals for the determination of any dispute, question relating to a waqf or waqf property and sub Clause (2) of Section-83 says that any Muttawali person interested in a waqf or any other person, aggrieved by an order made under this Act or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act or where no such time has been specified, within such time as may be prescribed to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf. Therefore, in view of the above-said specified provision, the petitioners have alternative remedy to challenge notice, issued to them u/S 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
9. No doubt, Sections-4 & 5 of Waqf Act, 1995 deal with appointment of Survey Commissioners, Survey of works and publication of list of waqfs and Section-6 of the aforesaid act gives a right to the Board, Muttawali or any person, interested thereunder to institute a suit in a Tribunal to get the question, decided as to whether any property is waqf property or not. Admittedly, the survey of property, in dispute has not been done neither the property, in dispute was mentioned in the list of waqfs but much prior to commencement of Waqf Act, 1995, the property in question had already been registered as waqf property of Ramjan Ali Waqf State, Bettiah, West Champaran bearing registration 8/9 No. 415 and the aforesaid registration was done in the year, 1950. The provisions of Sections-4 & 5 of Waqf Act, 1995 have been made only to ascertain to waqfs existing in the State on the date of commencement of the Act. Section-4 is a preliminary survey of waqfs and therefore, it cannot be said that if, any waqf is left to be detected at the time of survey, later on, the aforesaid waqf cannot be included in the list of waqfs. Moreover, in this case, the property in dispute was shown in the register, prepared under Section-33 of Bihar Waqf Act, 1947 and it is well settled principle of law that if, an act has been done under the provision of previous act, the same shall be deemed to have been done under the new provision by virtue of a legal fiction.
10. Here, I would like to refer Section-85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 which says that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf property or other matter, which is required by or is said to be determined by a tribunal. The aforesaid section clearly indicates that the tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the other matter which is required by or determined by a tribunal.
11. As I have already stated that Section-6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 says that if, a question arises whether a particular property specified as waqf property in the list of waqfs is waqf property or not, the same shall be decided by the tribunal and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid Section-85 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the civil court has got no jurisdiction to decide the above-said question. Moreover, Section-85A has been introduced through the Waqf (Bihar Amendment )Act, 2006 which says that any suit or other proceeding, pending before any court, immediately before the date of constitution of a tribunal under this Act and after the date of commencement of the Act, the cause of action of which is based on such facts, that if the tribunal would have been constituted, it 9/9 would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal, shall be deemed to be transferred to such tribunal on the date of constitution of the tribunal. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, the learned Sub Judge has got no option except to transfer title suit No. 278 of 2008 to the Waqf Tribunal, Bihar and therefore, in my view, the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable in the present case because almost all the decisions, cited on behalf of the petitioners relate to Waqf Act, 1947 or Waqf Act, 1954 in which, there was no provision for constitution of tribunals and the Waqf Tribunals have been constituted for the first time, under the Waqf Act, 1995. I am also of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the board of Waqf West Bengal (supra) and therefore, I am of the considered view that both the above said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, both the above said writ petitions stand dismissed. However, a liberty is given to the petitioners to challenge the notice, issued against them under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 before Waqf Tribunal, Patna, Bihar and if, they do so, the Waqf Tribunal, Bihar, Patna shall consider the condoning the delay in challenging the above said notices, issued under Section 54 of Bihar Waqf Act, 1995.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) A.K.V./-
U