IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1114 of 2010 1. ASHOK DAS S/O SRI JUGESHWAR DAS R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 2. SHREE SHARMA S/O LATE JAWAHAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 3. ANANDI PRASAD S/O KASHI MAHTO R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 4. LAW PRASAD S/O LATE SUDAMA MAHTO R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 5. KAILASH PRASAD S/O LATE JAGANNATH PRASAD R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 6. AJAY KUMAR S/O BALESHWAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 7. JANARDHAN MISTRI LATE RAM KHELAWAN MISTRI R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 8. INDRADEO PRASAD S/O RAM SWAROOP PRASAD R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 9. KAMLESHWAR MISTRI S/O LATE SIBU MISTRI R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 10. MATHURA MAHTO S/O LATE RAMDHANI MAHTO R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 11. RAJ BALLAH S/O LATE SARYUG PASWAN R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 12. SHAMBHU CHOUHAN S/O PREM SAGAR NONIA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 13. LALO SHARMA S/O BISHO THAKUR R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 14. RANJIT SHARMA S/O NARESH SHARMA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 15. GAUATRI DEVI W/O KUNDAN NONIA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 16. RAMESHWAR MAHTO S/O LATE MAHO MAHTO R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 17. BALMIKI DAS S/O LATE MAHAVIR DAS R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 18. BASUDEO NONIA S/O LATE MAHO NONIA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 19. RAJO SHARMA S/O LATE BISHO THAKUR R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 20. PREMAN NONIA S/O JAGANATH NONIA R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 21. SARYUG DAS S/O LATE JANGLI DAS R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 22. YUESHWAR DAS S/O LATE NATHUNI DAS R/O VILL.- MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHEIKHPURA 3. IRFANUL HAQUE S/O LATE NIJIAMUL HAQUE R/O VILL. AND P.O. MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA, AT PRESENT MUTAWALLI, SUNNI WAQF BOARD, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAQF BOARD, 34 HAJ BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, ALI IMAM PATH, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAQF BOARD, 34 HAJ BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA 6. SYED KHALIBUR RAHMAN S/O SYED AJIJUR RAHMAN R/O VILL.+P.O. MANINDA, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA, AT PRESENT MUTAWALLI OF BIBI RAYESUNNISSA WAQF ESTATE NO. 956 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Wakf Board: Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Adv. ----------- 2/ 18/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I.A. No.5198/10 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay of the operation of the interim order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Bihar Wakf Tribunal in Title Suit No.129/09. Considering that the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the title suit itself, the I.A. is allowed to form part of the challenge in the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sine qua non for jurisdiction to vest in the Wakf Tribunal is the requirement for the name of the Wakf to figure in the notification issued by the State Government under Section-4 of the Wakf Act and in terms of which the list of such Wakfs is required to be published and forwarded to the Board. It is only such Wakfs whose names find mention in this list which are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sections- 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act. A dispute with regard to a Wakf not mentioned in this list is beyond 3 the purview of the Tribunal created under the Act. The petitioner asserts that the lands as detailed in pargraph-6 of the writ application do not figure as wakf in the aforesaid list. “6. That the suit properties are Gairmazrua Aam Khata No.189 of Mouza- Manianda bearing plot No.1003, 1004, 1224 and 1225. Since the time of survey settlement operations till date plot No.1003 is in shape of pokhar or pond covering an area of 1.78 acres. There is nothing in kafiyat column of Records of right and as such its wage belong to members of the village communities coming from any section of the village society.” Hence, Title Suit No.129/09 before the Tribunal deeming it to be a Wakf under the Wakf Act is without jurisdiction. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Wakf Board. It states that all proceedings with regard to Wakf before the Civil Courts have been transferred to the Wakf Tribunal under a general order of this Court. Unfortunately the counter affidavit does not reply the specific question raised by the writ petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Board however submits that whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction or not, by examining whether the name of the Wakf in question figures in the list published or not is a fact which the Tribunal can itself examine and if it finds no jurisdiction in it, it can decline to hear the matter. 4 Since the question raised is going to the very root of jurisdiction in the matter and the respondents have chosen to file a counter affidavit in which the denial is not specific, the Court considers it proper to direct that the Wakf Tribunal before hearing the Title Suit No.129/09 shall frame the preliminary question with regard to its jurisdiction and arrive at a finding whether the name of the Wakf in question figures in the list published under the statutory provisions or not. If it has not been published, quite obviously, the Tribunal may lack jurisdiction. If the Tribunal is satisfied otherwise, it shall pass appropriate orders and proceed with expeditious disposal of the suit. In the event that the Tribunal finds lack of jurisdiction in itself, it is expected that necessary appropriate directions with regard to the interim order passed by it on 23.3.2010 shall be suitably made. Let the Tribunal after hearing all concerned including respondent no. 6 dispose off this preliminary question by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since the Court has declined to interfere at this stage and has simply required the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue when Respondent No.6 shall have adequate opportunity to defend the same, the 5 Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to him since the Board has already been heard. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)