Shri Siraj Ahmad vs Mohammad Musharraf

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

This revision under Section 83 (9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 has been challenging the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by Two Member Waqf Tribunal, Rampur in WAQF Appeal No. 12 of 2016: (Sambhal) Mohammad Musharraf & Others v. Siraj Ahmad & Others.

By the two orders passed, appeal has been registered and by another order, an interim order has been granted staying operation of the order dated 23.08.2016.

Primarily, challenge to this order is on the ground that it has been passed by a Tribunal consisting of two members, while the requirement under law is that the Waqf Tribunal should consist of three members.

A similar controversy had come up before this Court in Civil Revision No. 358 of 2016 and other connected matters which were decided vide order dated 24.11.2016.

By the judgement aforesaid, orders passed by an improperly constituted Waqf Tribunal were set aside and a further direction was issued to the Waqf Tribunal, which had since been properly constituted, to decide the issues, decided earlier, afresh. However, orders whereby a case was only ordered to be registered were not set aside.

In view of the aforesaid judgement dated 24.11.2011, even this revision deserves to be allowed without issuing notice to the opposite party.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.09.2016, granting injunction on an application filed by the respondent, is set aside, as it has been passed by an improperly constituted Waqf Tribunal.

The Waqf Tribunal which has since been properly constituted, is directed to consider the application 6-C afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, after hearing all concerned.

Subject to the above, the order dated 07.09.2016 is set aside and the revision is allowed.