Waqf Tribunal judgment cannot be challenged through writ petition when Section 83(9) revision remedy available

The Patna HC dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Waqf Tribunal's judgment regarding registration of a plot with mosque as waqf property. The court held that when statutory remedy exists under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 allowing revision to HC, writ petitions under Articles 226/227 are not maintainable. Relying on SC precedent in Sadhana Lodh and Himachal Pradesh HC decision in Mumtaz Ahmed, the court ruled that alternative statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable despite past practice of entertaining such petitions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the registration of properties under the Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's judgment rejecting Waqf Appeal No. 01 of 2017.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Registration of Properties:
The petitioner challenged the registration of Masjid Ahle Hadees properties in W.E. No. 2662, arguing it was part of W.E. No. 1052, registered in 1961 based on a waqfnama from 1920. The respondent no. 10 contended that the properties in W.E. No. 2662 were distinct and unrelated to those in the waqfnama of 1920, supported by documentary evidence.

2. Validity of the Tribunal's Judgment:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without examining the entire records of W.E. No. 1052 and without adequate hearing. The Tribunal erroneously concluded that the registration certificate did not relate to W.E. No. 1052. The petitioner also claimed that the Chief Executive Officer of the Board violated provisions of Section 36 read with Section 3(o)(i)(ii) of the Waqf Act, 1995.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
Respondent no. 10 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of revision u/s 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The court examined relevant provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, including Sections 6, 7, 83, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The court referred to precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, particularly Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2003) 3 SCC 524], which emphasized that where a statutory right to file a revision exists, a writ petition under Article 226/227 is not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Tribunal's judgment is not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy of revision u/s 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to invoke the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 for redressal of their grievances.

---