2010 (9) TMI 1267 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Wakf Tribunal, Directs Wakf Board to Seek Eviction via Civil Court, Dismisses Suit.

Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Versus Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf

The SC allowed the appeals, overturning the orders of the HC and Wakf Tribunal, and dismissed the Wakf Board's eviction suit. It clarified that the Wakf ... Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under the Wakf Act, 1995 - Whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who are occupying different items of what are admittedly Wakf properties - HELD THAT:-The well-settled rule in this regard is that the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statue which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general rule that all disputes shall be triable by a Civil Court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the Courts. The Court would, lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted. The difficulty, however, arises on account of the fact that apart from Section 6(5) which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to determine matters referred to in Section 6(1), Section 85 of the Act also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any legal proceedings in respect of any dispute, question or matter relating to a wakf property. In our view, nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act. It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. It is noteworthy that the expression 'for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property' appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act. Section 85 does not, however, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of any or every question or disputes only because the same relates to a wakf or a wakf property. Section 85 in terms provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall stand excluded in relation to only such matters as are required by or under this Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. In the cases at hand the Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property. A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from what is admittedly wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. In the result these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and those passed by the Wakf Tribunal shall stand set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-Wakf Board for the eviction of the appellants dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We make it clear that this order shall not prevent the Wakf Board from instituting, if so advised, appropriate civil action before the competent Civil Court for redress in accordance with law. No costs. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.2. Exclusion of Civil Courts' jurisdiction.3. Interpretation of Sections 6, 7, and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995.Summary:Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995:The core issue is whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, can entertain and adjudicate disputes regarding the eviction of tenants occupying Wakf properties. The Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirmed the Tribunal's jurisdiction, leading to the present appeals.Exclusion of Civil Courts' Jurisdiction:The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain disputes is expansive and can only be excluded by express or implied statutory provisions. The Wakf Act, 1995, under Sections 6(5) and 85, excludes Civil Courts' jurisdiction in specific matters but not all matters related to Wakf properties. Section 85 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits or proceedings in matters required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act.Interpretation of Sections 6, 7, and 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995:- Section 6: Excludes Civil Courts' jurisdiction in matters determining whether a property is Wakf property or whether a Wakf is Shia or Sunni.- Section 7: Provides the Tribunal jurisdiction over similar questions arising after the commencement of the Act.- Section 85: Bars Civil Courts from entertaining disputes required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act.The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters explicitly required by the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, and Punjab & Haryana incorrectly interpreted the Tribunal's jurisdiction as all-encompassing, while the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras, and Bombay correctly limited it.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and Wakf Tribunal, and dismissed the suit filed by the Wakf Board for eviction. The Wakf Board may pursue appropriate civil action before a competent Civil Court. No costs were awarded.