Civil Revision No. 4339 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4339 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.9.2010. Sham Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J This is plaintiff's revision challenging the impugned order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the provision of Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called “Wakf Tribunal”). As per the averments, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit for declaration that the land in dispute was not the Wakf property and therefore, the respondent-Wakf Board has no right to interfere in the lawful possession of the petitioner. The aforesaid Civil suit was transferred to the Wakf Tribunal by the Civil Court. Before the aforesaid Tribunal, its jurisdiction was challenged raising the argument that only Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the subject matter. Vide impugned order the Wakf Tribunal held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. It is relevant to point out that Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006, has observed as under:- “From a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 (supra) it is clear that the jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and Civil Revision No. 4339 of 2009 2 no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act. What is noteworthy is that under Section 6 read with Section 7 (supra) the institution of the Civil Court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein. The bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the wakf property. We may at this stage usefully digress from the core issue only to highlight the fact that Sections 6(1) and the proviso thereto has fallen for interpretation of this Court on a few occasions. In Board of Muslim Wakfs Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 468 one of the questions that fell for determination was, who are the parties that could be taken to be concerned in a proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. This Court held that under Section 6 (1) the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein is entitled to file a suit but the word “therein” following the expression “any person interested” must necessarily refer to the word “wakf” which immediately precedes it. The object underlying the proviso observed, this Court was to confine the power to file a suit to the mutawalli and persons interested in the Wakf. It did not extend to persons who are not persons interested in the wakf. Consequently, the right, title and interest of a stranger, (non-Muslim), to the wakf in a property cannot be put in jeopardy merely because that property is included in the list of wakfs.” In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, where in it has been held that the right, title and interest of a non- muslim to the Wakf in a property cannot be put in jeopardy because that property is included in the list of Wakf, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside holding that since the petitioner is a non-muslim, the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is only the Civil Court which had the jurisdiction in the present dispute. The parties are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court with regard to redressal of their grievances in Civil Revision No. 4339 of 2009 3 accordance with law. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 20.9.2010. JUDGE Reema