THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4256 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging judgment and decree dated 11.07.2007 in Original Suit No.52 of 2002 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereunder the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff to evict the petitioner/defendant from portion of H.No.5-9-87/4 known as ‘Ali Manzil’ situated at Chapel Road, Hyderabad, and for arrears of rent and mesne profits, was decreed with costs. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In support of the contention that A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to order eviction of tenant from registered wakf property, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) by LRs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf [1], wherein it is held thus: (para 22) “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. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed.” This case covers the facts of the present case. 4. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Doctrine of prospective over-ruling is applicable from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court, and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Sarwan Kumar and another v. Madanlal Aggarwal[2], wherein it is held thus: (para 15) “The doctrine of "prospective overruling" was initially made applicable to the matters arising under the Constitution but we understand the same has since been made applicable to the matters arising under the statutes as well. Under the doctrine of "prospective overruling" the law declared by the Court applies to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal would otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its existence. Invocation of doctrine of "prospective overruling" is left to the discretion of the court to mould with the justice of the cause or the matter before the court. This Court while deciding the Gian Devi Anand's case (supra) did not hold that the law declared by it would be prospective in operation. It was not for the High Court to say that the law laid down by this Court in Gian Devi Anand's case (supra) would be prospective in operation. If this is to be accepted then conflicting rules can supposedly be laid down by different High Courts regarding the applicability of the law laid down by this Court in Gian Devi Anand's case (supra) or any other case. Such a situation cannot be permitted to arise. In the absence of any direction by this Court that the rule laid down by this Court would be prospective in operation the finding recorded by the High Court that the rule laid down in Gian Devi Anand's case (supra) by this Court would be applicable to the cases arising from the date of the judgment of this Court cannot be accepted being erroneous.” 5. The learned counsel also relied on a decision in Kailashk Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & others[3], wherein it is held thus: (para 40) “Arguments were addressed before us on the contours and limitations of the doctrine of prospective overruling applied in our country for the first time in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 (2) SCR 762) in the context of invalidity of certain constitutional amendments and extended gradually to the laws found unconstitutional or even to the interpretation of ordinary statutes. The sum and substance of this innovative principle is that when the Court finds or lays down the correct law in the process of which the prevalent understanding of the law undergoes a change, the Court, on considerations of justice and fair deal, restricts the operation of the new found law to the future so that its impact does not fall on the past transactions. The doctrine recognises the discretion of the Court to prescribe the limits of retroactivity of the law declared by it. It is a great harmonizing principle equipping the Court with the power to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice. Justification for invoking the doctrine was also found in Articles 141 and 142 which as pointed out in Golak Nath's case are couched in such wide and elastic terms as to enable this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet the ends of justice. In the aftermath of Golak Nath case, we find quite an illuminating and analytical discussion of the doctrine by Sawant, J. in Managing Director v. B. Karunakar (1993 (4) SCC 727). The learned Judge prefaced the discussion with the following enunciation :- "It is now well settled that the Courts can make the law laid down by them prospective in operation to prevent unsettlement of the settled positions, to prevent administrative chaos and to meet the end of justice." Even from the above decision, it is clear that when the judgment has attained finalty, then only the later judgment of court of law would operate prospectively so as not to undo the settled positions. In view of the fact that the decree of eviction in this case has not attained finalty, which is the subject matter of the revision, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) by LRs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (1 supra) is applicable prospectively as contended by the learned for the respondent, cannot be accepted. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the suit is filed before the Civil Court for eviction of the tenant therein. This Court in T.Siva Lingam v. A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad[4] held : “So, it is Section 83 which grants jurisdiction to the Tribunals to entertain any disputes with regard to wakf property. So, all disputes with regard to wakf property are triable by Tribunal.”. In view of the law laid down by this Court and after constitution of the Wakf Tribunals, the case had been withdrawn from the Civil Court and transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. Before the Wakf Tribunal, evidence was let in on behalf of both the parties. In view of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram (dead) by LRs. V. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (1 supra), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in case of eviction of a person from the Wakf property and it is only Civil Court that has got jurisdiction to decide the issue. The decision of this Court in T.Siva Lingam’s case (4 supra) is over-ruled. The judgment of the Apex Court relates back to the date of ratio laid down by this Court. Hence, the judgment of the Supreme Court applies retrospectively. 7. Therefore, the impugned decree and judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal are set aside. All the records, including evidence and documents, shall be forwarded to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who shall in turn transfer the case to the court, which is having jurisdiction. Thereafter, it is directed that the concerned court shall dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the records after giving opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 1.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4256 OF 2007 1.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4256 OF 2007 1.2.2011 Between: Ghulam Ali Dasti …Petitioner/defendant And Hazrathk Syed Abdullah Fathi Saheb …Respondent/plaintiff [1] 2010 (6) ALT 76 (SC) [2] (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 147 [3] (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 562 [4] (1999) 3 ALT 602