c ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR W.P.NO. 2-3-7^ / 2004 Petltioiier ^ Versus RespoRdeiits .^>^ ":.-w^'' ^. cy^'" Chhattisgarh Shiksha Samiti, A registered Society under the Provisions of firms and societies Act, through its President Shankar Rao Bapte S/o late Khanderao Bapte, Aged about 80 years, R/o Kilaward, Juna Bilaspur, Dist : BUaspur.(C.G.) 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary (Tourism, Culture & Religious Trusts) : Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The Collector Bilaspur, Dist: Bilaspur-(C.G-) The Sub Registrar (Registration), Composite Building, Opposite Collector, Bilaspur-(C.G.) ..^y <?-'^' >' o'" ^" iM^ J '^<:—^^ '^T':^'\^ •":^^^ ^ ^v^^ ^^^•' ^ 4. Shri Rafique Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Masood Khan, Aged about 70 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur, Presently residing at Flat No.113, Utkarsh Nirman, Mangaleshwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur- (M.S.) 5. Jubed Ahmed Khan S/o Rafique Ahmed Khan, Aged about 45 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur, Presently residing at Flat No.113, Utkarsh Nirman, Mangaleshwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur"(M.S.) 6. Sameer Ahmed Khan S/o Rafique Ahmed Khan, Aged about 38 years, R/o Juni Line, Bilaspur, Presently residing at Flat No.113, Utkarsh Nirman, Mangaleshwari Bazar, Sadar Nagpur- (M.S.) ^.v 0'-°' (2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^T^T^FT f<Tii<=h 3?n^r ^HW ^Ra '^ •yoET ^ll^l<vj<4, ^Ti]l<i<i<o/ f^<rti^^< <4i^<ril 9blli<sb 3n^r 'q^? ^..^..fc.aM.a.K.^ ^ fc!|<b<^T* ^iTT^I '^TT^T ^rf^T 03.09.2004 Shri P. Diwakar, counse! Shri N,K. Agrdwai^Deput^ By this writ petjtion und| of India the petitioner has responaent No.4 to 6 be dire| and not to disturb the possess| in ^uestion; the Coilector; BiI4 action against respondent No| directed not to register any s^ possession of the petitioner, | respondent Nos,4 to 6 for C.G. be directed to conduct in question and the entire Vl| property-- be summoned before are th reatening the petitioner | any point of time be suitabiy and the school be protected. The case of the petitior registered Society under the and registration certificate is ^ chl4f<rl<lfl'1 'RTR^ff ^ fe^t <P»l^l< ^T 3Tf^R 3TT^[ or the petitioner. k Advocate ^enera! for the State. sr Articie 226/227 of theConstitutipn sought for foliowirig reiiefs; that :ted not to alienate the suit propert/ |on of the petitioner oyer the property I4spur be directed to take appropriate 3JS. 4 to 6;. the Deputy Registrar be de deed in respect of the propert^ in if some attempt is being made by aiie|iating the said propert)7; the State of hi^h fevei enquiry in respect of the Wakf fakf record in respect of the Wakf [this Court; respondent No,4 to 6 who |and Societ^ members for eviction at ^arned and the petitioner/the Societ/ |er is that the petitioner Sodety is a brovisions of firms and Societies Act ^nnexure P-l. The petitioner society is XI-HC-22 STT^T^T fqlw 5b+11cft <ll^^l ^ <^ t- -^-^zn^, -^f^ms, fa^i^y 31I^T XR^ .^..^;...Z:.3>:1^^ ; **4J* ^ WI, 'RIWTTWHI^ 200 fcl-b^* 3??1^T'^IT^IT ^Tftn <=hNfd^1T1 44iH<yiT 4 f^t <p3tt^i< ^7 3T(^FT ^TI^T runnina a schooi ift the name of in the premises, which has been Shri AAasood Khan in the year was fts.60A, which was increas^ to one Shri Rafique Ahmed phhattisgarh Hiaher Secondary Schooi taken by the Samiti on rent from one 95L Initialiy/ rent of the premises |d upto Rs.5,000/-, rent is being paid ^espondent No.4. Th^ petitioner's further case is that after takin^ iand on rent, the petitioner Societ^ constructed various rooms, ha] storerooms, and computer bloc| Rs.8,75,500/- in constructing construction at the market rate school is one of oidest schoois Lth th from Ciass 6Tn to 12T" are studyi(j about ISOOout of which 80% s] Scheduied Tribes, OBC and Minl II, iaboratories, stage, staff rooms, <s in various'areas and spent dbout the same/ the ;present cost of |is about 18,20,000/-. The petitioner's in the dty of Bilaspur and students [ig/tGtai strength of the students are tudents beiong to Scheduied Castes, prity. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the dev^iopment of 'rite itown, the school premises is now in the heart o^j the city surrounded by commercial activities, On account of this contrary to iiie Wakf-Nania, to development cost of the iand and buiiding is now very high and V^ ^^m^ thot respondent NoA to 6 have an icfea in thei^ mmds to seH if^eir property fa ^e pnvate per^an^ make good amount of ^^ney and to achieve the mission, some of th4 propert/ of the^ Wakf has already u XI-HC-22 3n^T^T f<rii<=h ^^ 9b^llct» <ii^n '3^? ^|t^M4, ^Til^i^, F^KrtKiy an^r xra^ ^ O f 2. 2.-? 6/64.'200 'fN^T' ^(HCftl ^*11<^ ^TI^T'^ff^R ^?T cage been soid and litigations are pert of the petitioner Society are No,4 to 6 that the schooi builcli^ per^on, iiierefo^e, Sodety be r\ apprehends that if the scho^ particuiariy to some contract^ teachers and students cannot dd power of such person. The petitioner further Haji A^ohd. Masood Khan be^ situated at Biiaspur and Raipur vide Wakf AiaE ^uladnama (Wak' Pam 11 of the Wakf deed. The the property mentioned in Par This propert/ is mahaged by S^ belng a Mutavaili, the sole purpo, benefit of descendents of the Wakf deed that re^pondent N< lifetirne. The soie responsibiiit^ propert/ efficientiyand honestl) of Wakf propert)/ 1/3 port ding before this CQurt, The members ^Sso getting threat fram respondent ^ and iand would afso be soldto third yady to feave ilie place. The Soclety building is soid to third person »rs or iand mafias then the poor anything especially against the Mafia ^Rfepft^'qpq^ff'? f^t <I^<^!< ^ ^RTf^FT 31T^T is that Haji Mohd. Akbar Khan <& |ueathed their immovabie property Idistricts of erstwhiie State of M.P. deed) dated 20.4.1937 described in |ubject matter of this writ petition is -1 situated at Chatapara,. BJiaspur. 'i Rafique IChan i.e. respondent No<4 |e of creating this Wakf was for the txecutants, it was made ciear in the |>4 is to act as Mutavalii during his of AA.utavaiii is to manag^ the Wakf [without wasting, From the proceeds iJDn is to be distributed amongst i. ll: XI-HC-22 37T^?T'^T f<^i5h 3Tl|P?T ^^iw ^n (-4: ^ Ta? ^||^H<4, ^^^<l<o, I®«ni^^< STT^T^ra^ . 10 P.JZ^>7^0^ r^ra?--";:-""-"""-"-^'200 WHCf(T5h^|ch •i^sr' 37T^T '^RITW^crf^T -^ ^uaredar's (Beneficiaries) with Gbl^f<rl41T1 ^l^dT 4 f^st <P»i^s< ^ ^rf^m 3n^T 4. Irest of the income, Mutavaili is to manage his family and rnaintaln the Wakf property. The Wakf property described in Wakf De^d (Annexure P-4) was duiy notified in the State ^azette dated 25.8.99 (Annexure P-2) Therefore/ by this petiti^n the petitioner is seekin9 a reiief restrdning respondent No.4 to property in question to any third |6 from transferring or alienating the Iperson, I have heard learned cour^sei for the petitioner qn the question ofadmission. Learned counsei for th^ petitioner argued that the Wakf property cannot be transferFe<|; mortgaged, gifted or soid to any third person but respondent No.-|l- to 6 are trying to transfer/alienate fhis propert^ to third party/pa^ticuldriy to some powerfu! iobbyand if it is aiiowed then the petitior| they wiii be dispossessed from tl amount which was invested by th a writ of prohibition respondent ar has reasonab!e apprehension that ie property in question Gnd the huge pm wiil 90 waste. Therefore, through ^o,4 to 6 be restrained from setiing, As per the ailegations n| transferring or alienating the pro^erty in question to any third persoh, as a!so respondent No.2 be direct^d to intervene in the matter. lade in the writ petition, it is an admitted fact that the petitionei| Society is in occupation of the sdd +- XI-HC-22 3T1^?T'^T f<rii<=h ^^\ 5h+ilc^ <M^a -g-o^ ^11^11^4, ^Ti1<i<i<o, fa<ni<iy 3H^T 'q^? , M.:L.2^al°^ 200 'WRCfITWNI<=h ^^T" 3^T^^1TW^f^T ^^- property as a tenant, the petitl right. The main reiief in the chl^d41T1 'RTR^Tf "^ 'fe^st ^^K '^3ri^TH371^T ioner's right is to protect its tenancy ^etition is sought against respondent No.4 to 6, who are the private p|srties; therefore, in the first instance no writ of prohibition can be i3Si|ed against the private parties. A writ of prohibition can be issued b^ preventing inferior court from not iegaiiy vested, or in. other^ Judicial duties to keep within t| prevent them from vioiatin9 th^ prohibition lies against the judi against the priyate person. The main grieyance of the 6 be restrained from seliing th| that raised by the petitioner is and respondeht No.4 to 6 are nc^ On the one hand the petitione superior court to an inferior court Lisurping Jurisdiction with which it is words, to compel the Courts with |ie iimits of their jurisdiction/or to ruies of naturai Justice. A writ of |:ia! or quasi-judicial proceedings not jpetitioner is that respondent No,4 to tenanted property and ground for |hat first of ali itis a Wakf property t entitied to transfer that property. has cdmitted that the father of respondent No.4 teased out the |3roperty to him, Respondent No.4 is Mutawaili of the Wakf property first instance, the ^etitioner her^ and receiving monthiy rent, In the ein is entitSed to protect his right to tenancy on the ground that with(|ut foliowing due pro^ss of law, the petitioner Sodety should not b4 evicted from the rented propert^ f- XI-MC.22 sn^r'^r ^Jch 37l|RT 91<l4-llctl tll^^I k -< -3-55T ^I^H^, ^Tll^^Ko, fa<ni<11< ^L.^.^i^ ^ ,^^....^....=..........................^ 200 WRCfll $hHI<^ fgre^i* and for thatpurpose as and w^ or the petitioner is threatene| then the petitioner wili be entit^ for redressa! of its grjevances to 6 are private persons, thereflc for exampSe/ the respondent execute any sale deed, in the fir registering the document wiil No.4 to 6 whether dthey are thereafter only he wili refuse o it can not Gssumed that sub' without Jooking into the authori[ty land. Even otherwise, in Para written thdt it seems that respi mind^ to sell their proper+y ta\ ailegattons are Jeyeled against transferring the property' and property. In Paragraph-S of petition, it has jbeen mentionec within the personal knowledge ol Petitsorier Societ/, but it has no' ch}^(d<Lftrl 'RTR^lf'? ft^t Tf^$R ^ 3:rf^PT ^TT^T m the petitioner's right is in Jeopardy by anyone to vacafe the premises, |ed to approach the approprlate Forum mentjoned aboye Fesopondents No. 4 )re/no writ lies against them. Even if ^o.4 to 6 are not entitie and they |lst instance, the Sub-Registrar before >ok into the authorit^ of respondent ^ntitle to seli the propert/ or not, register the document, at this stage ^ftegistrar wiil regteter the document of the transferee to transfer the .7 of the petition, the petitioner has \ndent No.4 to 6 haye the idea in their \pr/wte pe^san^ but stiii no definite |lespondent No.4 to 6 that they are to whom they are transferring the i|he affidavit filed in support of the that contents of the petition are Shankar Rao Bapte, Presiderst of the been mentioned that from whomand i- XI-HC-22 -3-sr ^|^ld<LI, ^•a1<i<i<o, ^^^ .3&^^ 'RYWfITWH|ch 200 fc|<b<8T* STT^T'^T ^rti5h ^^ \;5b^icti ^rf 37T^T '^nw ^f^a ^ rf fromwherehe has received per^< to 6 are transferring the prope^ty transferrtng/ therefore/this pet| Therefore, in view of the| writ petition is misconceiyed for be dismissed and it is, accordingl^ cbl^id^T1 ^H<yff ^ 1^T^> <fa^!< '^^rf^R^n^T ^onai Rnowled9e that respondent No.4 in question and to whom they are tion lacks in material particulars. abdve, I am of the opinion that the the above reasons, same is iiabie to ?, dismissed at the admission stage. i Sd/- I L.C. Bhadoo Judge l^