& Ors Vs. Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board & Ors  Insc 1 (3 January 2005)
Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia
out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19794/2003) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, holding that the petition filed by
the appellants before the Madhya Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal (in short
the 'Tribunal') was barred by time.
position sans unnecessary details is as follows:
27.12.1996, appellants filed an application before the Tribunal seeking a
declaration that the suit property specified in official gazette (Wakf List)
dated 13.9.1985 is in fact not a wakf property, but the said property exclusively
belongs to the appellants.
essence, they sought for a declaration that they were 'Bhumiswami' of the suit
property which consisted of agricultural lands. Hence, the declaration is bad
in law and not binding. The Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board (in short 'the Wakf
Board') resisted the claim made, taking the stand that the applicants had no
title. In any event, the application was hopelessly barred by time. It was
their stand that the suit was not filed within one year from the date of
publication in the official gazette as contemplated under Section 6 of the Wakf
Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act') which was in force at the relevant time.
Subsequently, the Wakf Act, 1995 has been enacted. The Tribunal allowed the
application over-ruling the objections raised by the Wakf Board and held that
the application was within time and the applicants had proved their title on
facts and consequentially were entitled to the declaration as sought for. It
was, therefore, held that the declaration made in the official gazette to the
effect that the suit property was wakf property is bad and the applicants were
the 'Bhumiswami' of the suit land.
correctness of the order the Wakf Board filed a revision in terms of proviso to
Section 83(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995. At the time of hearing revision
application none was present on behalf of the Wakf Board. Learned Single Judge
held that limitation to file a suit to seek declaration as to whether a
particular property was Wakf's property or not is one year and it begins from
the date of publication of the list of wakf's properties. Reference was made to
Section 6 of the Act in this context. The said judgment is the subject matter
of challenge in this appeal.
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
High Court has fallen into grave error by holding that the application made by
the appellants before the Tribunal was barred by time, as Section 6 had no
application to the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge found as
a matter of fact that no notice was given to the appellants before the
promulgation of the notification. As soon as the appellants came to know of the
notification, they filed an application before the Tribunal. In any event, when
the application was based on title, Section 6 had no application.
response, learned counsel for the Wakf Board supported the judgment of the High
Court and submitted that the position in law is very clear and Section 6 of the
Act has clear application.
II of the Act refers to the preliminary survey of Wakfs and Section 5 deals
with the publication of the list of Wakfs. Section 5 reads as follows:
Publication of list of wakfs: -
receipt of a report under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the State Government
shall forward a copy of the same to the Board.
The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and
publish, in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs in the State, or as the case
may be, the part of the State, whether in existence at the commencement of this
Act or coming into existence thereafter to which the report relates, and
containing such particulars as may be prescribed." Section 6 deals with
disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:
Disputes regarding wakfs. –
any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in
a list of wakfs published under sub- section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property
or not, whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf, the
Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may
institute a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for the decision of
the question and the decision of the civil court in respect of such matter
shall be final :" No doubt as contended by the Wakf Board, the first
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 as extracted below requires that a
civil suit shall be filed within one year from the date of the publication of
the notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5.
first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 reads as follows:
that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil court after the expiry of
one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs under
sub-section (2) of Section 5:" The operative words in sub-section (1) of
Section 6 of the Act are "the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any
person interested therein". As observed by this Court in Punjab Wakf Board
v. Gram Panchayat @ Gram Sabha (2000 (2) SCC 121) the requirement to file a
civil suit within one year of the notification under the Act as mentioned in
the first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act is in connection with any dispute
between the Wakf Board on the one hand and the mutawalli of the wakf on the other
or any person interested therein. The expression "therein" was
interpreted by this Court in Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board (1998 (2) SCC 642).
It was held that the expression "therein" means
"interested" in the wakf as distinct from interested in the property
i.e. a third party. In fact, in paragraph 33 of Board of Muslim Wakfs,
Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors. (1979 (2) SCC 468), a three-Judge Bench of
this Court observed as follows:
The answer to these questions must turn on the true meaning and construction of
the word 'therein' in the expression 'any person interested therein' appearing
in sub-section (1) of Section 6.
order to understand the meaning of the word 'therein' in our view, it is
necessary to refer to the preceding words 'the Board or the Mutawalli of the wakf'.
The word 'therein' must necessarily refer to the 'wakf' which immediately
precedes it. It cannot refer to the 'wakf property'. Sub-section (1) of Section
6 enumerates the persons who can file suits and also the questions in respect
of which such suits can be filed. In enumerating the persons who are empowered
to file suits under this provision, only the Board, the mutawalli of the wakf,
and 'any person interested therein' thereby necessarily meaning any person
interested in the wakf, are listed. It should be borne in mind that the Act
deals with wakfs, its institutions and its properties. It would, therefore, be
logical and reasonable to infer that its provisions empower only those who are
interested in the wakfs, to institute suits." For coming to the aforesaid
conclusion this Court relied on an earlier decision in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v.
Sunni Central Board of Wakf U.P. (AIR 1959 SC 198).
position in law as indicated by this Court in the aforesaid cases does not
appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. The effect of the relief
sought for in the suit and the effect of the decisions of this Court referred
to above were required to be kept in view. As noted above, none was present on
behalf of the Wakf Board at the time of hearing of the revision application by
the High Court.
aforesaid background, we think it appropriate to remit the matter to the High
Court for a fresh consideration keeping in view the decisions in Punjab Wakf
Board's case (supra), Radha Kishan's case (supra) and Siraj-ul-Khan's case
(supra) and the factual position as indicated and the reliefs sought for in the
suit. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.