1 19 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2671/2009. Mohammed Kalu Vs. Rajasthan Wakaf Tribunal & Ors. Date of Order :: 4th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: The suit as filed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Waqf Tribunal, Jaipur seeking the relief of perpetual injunction has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.11.2008 (Annex.4) after the Tribunal found from the material placed on record that there had been categoric findings in the previous proceedings in the Civil Courts that the property in question, as held by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was not the Waqf property. Though it was suggested before the Tribunal that the plaintiff was not the party to the earlier suit but then, the Tribunal has found that the subject matter was the same and per Section 7 (5) of the Waqf Act, it had no jurisdiction to determine the matter that had been the subject-matter of any suit or proceedings instituted in a Civil Court under Sub- section (6) of Section 1 before commencement of the Act. It 2 has also been found that the petitioner has consciously chosen not to file the suit for cancellation of any document or for declaration and has filed the suit only for injunction that was required to be dismissed. The findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on the material available on the record comprising, inter alia, of the decisions as rendered by the Civil Courts including the one by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 312/2003; and there does not appear any jurisdictional error leading to failure of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court. It has been suggested that the Tribunal has not considered the grounds stated by the petitioner and that the position regarding location of the land in question and it being a part of Kabristan would have been clear if adequate demarcation was carried out at the site. The submissions remain hollow and baseless. The Tribunal has dealt with the matter in meticulous details and has referred to the revenue record as well as to the fact that 44 bighas and 4 biswas of land of khasra No. 790 was set apart and given by the Collector, Nagaur to the Municipal Board, Didwana and the land was recorded as abadi land. In view of the findings as reached by the learned Tribunal, there was no reason to take 3 up any further inquiry or to seek any clarification by way of demarcation. In any case, on the questions of fact as sought to be suggested, there appears no reason for this Court to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//