Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 22 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Wakf Act, 1995
Section 25 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 90 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Harphool Singh (Dead) Through His L.Rs on 4 May, 2000
The ratio of the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs. (supra) is in the absence of any provision for deciding title etc. in the special statute, Civil Court will have the power to determine such question. In this connection, I should point out the contents of the Annexure-A to the application for taking note of subsequent events for appropriate orders. Such annexure is the certified copy of the Wakf Boards Resolutions dated 29.6.98 and 30.6.98 and there, Board clearly noted that the transfer of "Mahato Tank" was void ab initio and directed the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate to take all legal steps towards instituting the civil suit in a competent Court of law for a decree of declaration. From all these, it is evident that in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, there cannot be a total ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by virtue of the provision as contended by the learned Counsel for the O.P./respondents. Even the Wakf Board was aware of the legal position for which a resolution was adopted directing the Mutawalli to take steps for filing a regular suit before the Civil Court over the matter.
Section 83 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Tamil Nadu Etc vs Ramalinga Samigal Madam Etc on 1 May, 1985
In the reported decision, the Apex Court mentioned few other decisions of that Court, namely, in the case of Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, and Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty & Sons v. State of A.P., and also the case in State of T.N. v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, , Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., , to arrive at a conclusion that bar was with reference to any matter which a Revenue Officer was empowered by the Act to determine and the question of title was foreign to the scope of proceedings under the Act and that the questions relating to disputed claims of parties for title to an immovable property could be decided only by the competent Civil Court and that in the absence of a machinery in the special enactment to determine disputes relating to title between two rival claimants, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not be said to have been ousted. Therefore, in deciding the question whether Section 85 of the Act completely ousted jurisdiction of the Civil Court or not, what is to be looked into is whether by such Act that is to say Wakf Act, 1995, a machinery has been provided in the Act to determine disputes relating to title between the two rival claimants. I have already noted that the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has taken me through different provisions of the Act to show that the Tribunal created by the Act has got some powers to deal with some definite questions relating to Wakf property, Wakf, but nothing has been shown even by the learned Counsel for the respondent/O.P. that the Tribunal will act as a Civil Court in determining title etc. of the parties in dispute. What has been shown by the learned Counsel for the respondent/ O.P. is Clause (5) of Section 83 where it has been provided that the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit, or executing a decree or order. But that is not sufficient to indicate that the Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to try every kind of suit of civil nature and determine the question of title. It transpires from the petition itself that the petitioners brought the T.S. No. 64 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah praying for a declaration of title, injunction etc. and the suit property was a tank called "Mahato Tank" measuring 16 bighas 2 cottah. The plaintiffs/ petitioners claimed that they were in possession of the suit property and if it is found that the plaintiffs/ petitioners claim of possession over the property was based on a void document, then further question would be whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, they have acquired a title over the suit property based on adverse possession. It is evident that the Tribunal set up by the Act cannot decide these questions under the Act.