Wakf Tribunal remedy and jurisdiction: revision lies instead of appeal, and eviction suits go to civil court.

Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act bars an appeal against Wakf Tribunal orders, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is the statutory remedy for challenge; a regular appeal or Article 227 petition is not the proper mode. The Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 6, 7 and 83 is confined to disputes over wakf status and related specified matters, and does not extend to eviction of tenants in occupation of wakf property. Such eviction and use-and-occupation disputes therefore remain triable by the civil court, not the Wakf Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal or a petition under Article 227 lies against an order of the Wakf Tribunal when Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 provides only a revisional remedy; (ii) Whether a suit for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against a tenant of wakf property is triable by the Wakf Tribunal or by the civil court.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal or a petition under Article 227 lies against an order of the Wakf Tribunal when Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 provides only a revisional remedy.

Analysis: Sections 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 create the forum of the Wakf Tribunal for specified wakf disputes and declare its decision final, while Section 83(9) expressly bars an appeal against any decision or order of the Tribunal. The proviso to Section 83(9) preserves the High Court's revisional power, which is the statutory remedy contemplated for an aggrieved person. On that construction, a regular first appeal or writ petition against the Tribunal's order is not the proper mode of challenge.

Conclusion: No appeal lies against the Wakf Tribunal's order, and the proper remedy is revision before the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for eviction and recovery of use and occupation charges against a tenant of wakf property is triable by the Wakf Tribunal or by the civil court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme in Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is confined to disputes regarding whether property is wakf property or whether a wakf is Shia or Sunni, and does not extend to eviction disputes against tenants in occupation of wakf property. Applying that scheme, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded for eviction suits, and such disputes remain triable by the civil court.

Conclusion: A suit for eviction against a tenant in relation to wakf property lies before the civil court, not the Wakf Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The judgment holds that appeals against Wakf Tribunal orders are not maintainable, revision is the proper statutory remedy, and eviction disputes against tenants of wakf property must be tried by the civil court.

---