Unknown vs Rajendra Shankar Patil). In This

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unknown vs Rajendra Shankar Patil). In This

1. Petitioner is the respondent in O.S.32/2015 on the files of the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode. The Original Suit was filed seeking an order for the eviction of the petitioner herein from building Nos.9/228, 9/230 and 9/231 of Vazhakkad grama panchayat. The petitioner filed a written statement admitting the tenancy with respect to the aforesaid shop rooms and the title of the respondents. But, subsequently the petitioner came to know that actually he is not in occupation of the aforesaid three shop rooms and he is in occupation of one shop room bearing No.9/228 only. Similarly, the above said rooms are situated in the property having an extent of 2.25 cents purchased by virtue of assignment deed No.1320/1992, by Isiyathul Islam Trust. This property was never purchased by the plaintiff and the petition schedule property belongs to the said Trust. In the OP(Wakf).44/2016 2 above context, the petitioner filed I.A.484/2016 praying for amending the written statement so as to deny the occupancy of scheduled shop rooms bearing door Nos.9/230 and 9/231 and the title of the respondent.

2. The 1st respondent filed objection opposing the amendment inter alia contending that the status of the 1 st defendant is an encroacher, by virtue of Section 3(ee) of the Waqf Act, 1995 as amended by Act 27 of 2013 and that the defendant admitted his tenancy in the reply notice and in the earlier written statement. According to them, in the written statement the petitioner admitted that shop rooms are wakf properties. Therefore the matters sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is clearly barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the act of defendant in challenging the title of the plaintiff is barred by virtue of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act. With the above contention they prayed for dismissal of the interlocutory application.

3. On the rival pleadings the tribunal considered OP(Wakf).44/2016 3 the requirement of amendment as contended by the petitioner and dismissed the petition on a finding that the matters sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is clearly barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings, by which the tribunal passed the impugned order, are challenged in this Original petition.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Waqf Board.

5. When this matter has come up for hearing we ourselves doubted the maintainability of this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We have expressed our concern that when a proper statutory remedy is specifically provided under Sec.83 (9) of the Wakf Act, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel was required to address on this point.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments exhaustively highlighting the scope and extent of OP(Wakf).44/2016 4 supervisory jurisdiction provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel contends that the challenge against the impugned order passed on an application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not fall under the revisional jurisdiction contemplated in the proviso to Sec.83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is contended that the word 'dispute' and 'determination' contemplated under the said proviso relates to and confined to dispute relating to a Waqf or Waqf property, eviction of tenant or determination of rights and obligations of a lesser and lessee of such property under this Act only and the requirement of amendment under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not fall within the expression 'dispute' contemplated under Sec.83(9) of the Wakf Act. Similarly, the order passed on an application filed under Order VI rule 17 is not a 'determination' envisaged under Sec.83(9) of the Wakf Act. We have meticulously gone through Sec.83(9) which reads as given below:

83 (9). No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal:

Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose OP(Wakf).44/2016 5 of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit.

7. On a reading of the proviso to Sec.83(9) of the Wakf Act, it is seen that the High Court is given the power, on the application of the aggrieved party, to call for and examine the record relating to 'any dispute', question or other matter which has been determined by the tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination. The expressions 'dispute' and 'determination' are not specifically defined in the Act . Therefore, general meaning provided in the dictionary can be taken for considering the scope and extent of the said expressions. In common parlance a dispute arises when one party asserts a thing or a matter and other party denies it. According to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 'dispute(n)' means disagreement and 'determination' means and includes the process of deciding something officially. It is pertinent to note that the expression 'any' is specifically incorporated before the expression 'dispute' so as to enlarge the extent of 'dispute'. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in a suit filed under the Waqf Act, before the tribunal, any decision taken by the tribunal OP(Wakf).44/2016 6 on any dispute in that suit would be a determination falling under the revisional jurisdiction provided under Sec.83 (9) of the Waqf Act. Therefore, any order passed by the Tribunal on any application filed by one party and objected by the other party can be challenged in revision provided under Sec.83 (9) of the Wakf Act, before the High Court. We find that there is a determination on dispute in the order passed on an application filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC and thereby such orders would fall under Sec.83 (9) of the Wakf Act and revision is the proper mode of remedy to challenge the said order.

8. The next question to be considered is can the High Court interfere with the orders passed by the Courts and Tribunals inferior to it invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where a specific alternative statutory mode redressal has been provided under the special enactment. We find that the answer to the above question is given by the apex court in (2010) 8 SCC 329 (Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil). In this decision itself the Supreme Court has considered the scope and extent of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and certain principles are formulated and OP(Wakf).44/2016 7 enumerated as (a) to (n) in the said decision. Clause (c) of the said principles reads as follows:

(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

9. Further, in AIR 1977 SC 1703 (K.K.Shrivastava etc vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain & Ors) the apex court held that 'Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court should keep its hands off'. Therefore in view of the legal position well settled by the apex court we find that when a specific alternative mode of redressal is provided to challenge an order passed on an application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the legality or correctness of that order, under law. Therefore we dismiss the original petition with a liberty to file revision in accordance with law if the petitioner so desires.

The original Petition (Waqf) is dismissed. OP(Wakf).44/2016 8 K.HARILAL Judge A.M.BABU Judge sks/16.1.2018

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court