AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Wakf Tribunal. Against the said order, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.8.2011.
Contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the opposite parties are strangers to the property in question as such the Petitioner cannot be relegated to the Tribunal.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 submitted that in fact the Petitioner himself is a stranger to the property in question and u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Petitioner should at the first instance approach the Wakf Tribunal. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begu and Anr. 2011 (29) LCD 60. The relevant para 10 of the judgment is quoted below:
In our opinion, all matter pertaining to Wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted u/s 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by the Civil Court or by the High Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have considered various submissions made by the parties'' counsel and gone through the record.
The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has considered the submissions made by the parties'' counsel and has come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.