Ram kumar vs State of U.P. and others

Pradeep Kant and Vedpal, JJ.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the property falling on Khasra No. 1135 could not have been recorded as Waqf property as the properties falling under Waqf were duly registered.

Shri M. Sayeed appearing for the Waqf Board says that some of the properties which formed the waqf property since were not recorded as such, therefore such correction has been made. He further submits that dispute of like nature can be decided by the Tribunal u/s 83 of the Act and it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relies upon a decision of a Division Bench passed by us in the case of Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow and others in writ petition No. 1739 (M/B) of 2011 wherein it has been held that the question regarding a particular property being the waqf property or not, has to be considered by the Board or by the Tribunal.

Considering the pleas raised, we are of the opinion that the question whether the property in dispute is Waqf property or not, has to be decided by the Board or by the Tribunal and such matter cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as it requires evidence to be led.

However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that with regard to the property in question, a civil suit is also maintainable.

We do not intend to address ourselves on the said issue and if a civil suit is filed and is maintainable, the present order would not come in the way.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy, as may be provided under the Act itself and as may be permissible under law.