Statutory revisional remedy and wakf property protection support interim restraint on alienation pending trial.

Where a statute provides a specific revisional remedy against Wakf Tribunal orders, civil revision petitions under Article 227 are not ordinarily maintainable and must be treated, if at all, within the statutory revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal's interim injunction against alienation of the Manikonda lands was upheld because notified wakf entries, the errata notification, earlier records and government documents showed a strong prima facie wakf claim; the errata was treated as relating back to the original notification. The injunction was also justified to prevent third-party interests, multiplicity of litigation and prejudice to wakf property, though one survey-number issue was left for clarification before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution were maintainable against orders of the Wakf Tribunal when the Wakf Act provided a revisional remedy under Section 83(9); (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting and continuing interim injunction against alienation of the Manikonda lands on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Issue (i): Whether civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution were maintainable against orders of the Wakf Tribunal when the Wakf Act provided a revisional remedy under Section 83(9).

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave the High Court revisional power to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of orders of the Wakf Tribunal under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995. Where a statute creates a specific forum and remedy, recourse to Article 227 was not maintainable in the ordinary course. The petitions were therefore tested as revisions under the statutory power rather than as supervisory proceedings under Article 227.

Conclusion: The petitions could not be maintained as Article 227 proceedings and had to be considered, if at all, within the confines of the statutory revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting and continuing interim injunction against alienation of the Manikonda lands on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Analysis: The notified wakf entries, the errata notification, the prior Atiyat and High Court records, and the contemporaneous Government documents furnished a strong prima facie basis to treat the lands as wakf property. The errata was held to relate back to the original notification. The earlier writ proceedings permitting construction were confined in scope and did not authorise alienation of the property. Allowing alienations would multiply litigation, create third-party interests, and place the petitioners in an advantageous position if the suit eventually succeeded for the wakf. The plea of financial hardship and availability of monetary compensation did not outweigh the public interest in preserving wakf property. In one matter, a portion relating to survey No. 266 required separate consideration by the Tribunal, but that did not dislodge the injunction already granted on the broader controversy.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's interlocutory injunction was upheld and no interference was warranted, save that one revision was disposed of with liberty to seek clarification before the Tribunal regarding the survey-number aspect.

Final Conclusion: The revisions challenging the wakf tribunal's restraint order failed, and the interim protection in favour of the wakf side was maintained, with one connected matter left to be clarified before the Tribunal on the limited survey-number issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous notifications and prior records establish a strong prima facie claim over wakf property, alienation pending trial may be restrained even if construction has progressed, because third-party transfers would multiply litigation and defeat the protective purpose of interlocutory injunction.

---