- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Board Of Wakf, West Bengal (S) v. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr. (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
The litigation concerns the Wakf estate of Shahzadi Begum, created by a registered deed dated 22 September 1936 with respect to premises no. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700017. The deed earmarked 75 % of the property for wakf-al-al-aulad (benefit of the settlor’s descendants) and 25 % for religious and charitable purposes.
Two questions regarding (i) the correctness of the demarcation and (ii) the applicability of the Wakf Act, 1995 to the wakf-al-al-aulad portion were referred to the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court in Suit No. 488 of 1999. A learned Single Judge answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative (order dated 30 February 2000). On appeal, a Division Bench reversed both findings by answering both questions in the negative (judgment dated 2 May 2003).
The present appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the Division Bench judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, or whether exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Sections 83-84 of the Wakf Act, 1995.
- Consequent upon the answer to Issue 1, whether the Division Bench’s answers on the substantive questions concerning demarcation and applicability of the Wakf Act could stand.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Invoked Sections 83-84 of the Wakf Act, 1995 to contend that all disputes “relating to a wakf or wakf property” must be initiated before the Wakf Tribunal, rendering the High Court suit incompetent.
- Relied on the principle that a special statute providing a special forum ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Cited Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf to argue that certain matters—including eviction disputes—remain within civil-court domain, suggesting the High Court could entertain the present suit.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors. v. Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350 | Where a matter falls within a special statute (Industrial Disputes Act), civil-court jurisdiction is excluded. | Analogy used to emphasise that the Wakf Act likewise creates an exclusive forum. |
| Sardar Khan v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1447 | The 1995 Wakf Act does not apply to proceedings commenced before 1 January 1996. | Clarified that the present case—commenced in 1999—falls within the Act, hence Tribunal jurisdiction applies. |
| Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCALE 698 | Eviction proceedings concerning wakf property lie before civil courts, not the Wakf Tribunal. | Held distinguishable because the instant dispute deals with demarcation and applicability of the Act, not eviction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed Sections 83(1), 83(5) and 84 of the Wakf Act, 1995, characterising the phrase “any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” as possessing “very wide connotation.” It emphasised:
- The Wakf Tribunal enjoys all civil-court powers (including interim relief), providing a comprehensive remedy.
- Sections 83-84 do not restrict the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to cases arising from orders under the Act; parties may approach the Tribunal even in the absence of such orders.
- Under the proviso to Section 83(9), appellate oversight by the High Court is preserved, showing Parliament’s intent that the Tribunal be the court of first instance.
- Applying the settled canon that a special statute with a special forum ousts general jurisdiction, the Court concluded the High Court should not have entertained the suit.
- The decision in Ramesh Gobindram was inapplicable because that case dealt exclusively with eviction—an issue not before the Court in the current appeal.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court is set aside; exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Wakf Tribunal. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Implications: The parties must initiate or continue proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal. The ruling reinforces that, for disputes arising after 1 January 1996, the Wakf Tribunal is the exclusive first-instance forum, thereby streamlining wakf-related litigation and reducing the civil-court docket. No new substantive doctrine was created, but the decision fortifies the jurisdictional boundary between civil courts and the Tribunal under the Wakf Act, 1995.
Markandey Katju, J.:—This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 02.5.2003 in A.P.O.T No. 775 of 2002.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts of this case have been stated in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here, except where necessary.
4. The dispute pertains to the Wakf estate of Shahzadi Begum which was created by a Registered Deed of Wakf dated 22.09.1936 by one late Shahzadi Begum. By the said Wakf Deed the Wakf was created with the object of dedicating the property being Premises No. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, (formerly Theatre Road), Calcutta-700 017, partly for the benefit of the Wakifa, her family and descendants and partly for pious and religious purposes. In order to give effect to the object of the Wakf, the property had been demarcated and/or divided into two portions having 75% share for Wakf-al-al-aulad and 25% share for pious and religious purposes. The Wakf had been enrolled under the appropriate laws then prevailing, and registered as a Wakf Estate. The aforesaid property has been partitioned by metes and bounds by keeping 75% thereof for the benefit of the descendants of the family of the Wakifa in terms of the Wakf Deed and the remaining 25% for a religious and charitable purposes.
5. Suit No. 488 of 1999 was filed in Original Summons jurisdiction for answers to be given for the following two questions:
7 Whether the demarcation of the Wakf property being Premises No. 33, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta - 700 017, made as above in dividing the said property in two distinctive parts, one for Wakf-al-al-aulad and the remaining portion for pious and religious purposes, is correct and has been made in consonance with the provisions of the Wakf Deed ?
7 Whether the Wakf Act, 1995 is applicable for the portion of the said property divided and earmarked for Wakf-al-al-aulad ?
6. By the order dated 30.02.2000 the Learned Single Judge answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.
7. However, in appeal, the Division Bench by the impugned judgment has answered both the questions in the negative. Hence, this appeal.
8. It was submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter under the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence the Suit filed in the High Court was without jurisdiction. We agree.
9. The dispute in the present case relates to a Wakf.
10. In our opinion, all matters pertaining to Wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 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.
11. It may be mentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a recent parliamentary statute which has constituted a special Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to Wakfs. The obvious purpose of constituting such a Tribunal was that a lot of cases relating to Wakfs were being filed in the courts in India and they were occupying a lot of time of all the Courts in the country, which resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the Courts. Hence, a special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters.
12. Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 states,
“83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc. - (1) The State Government shall, by notification if the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each or such Tribunals.”
13. Section 84 of the Act states,
“84. Tribunal to hold proceedings expeditiously and to furnish to the parties copies of its decision - Whenever an application is made to a Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property it shall hold its proceedings as expeditiously as possible and shall as soon as practicable on the conclusion of the hearing of such matter give its decision in writing and furnish a copy of such decision to each of the parties to the dispute”.
14. Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputes, questions or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. The words “any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property” are, in our opinion, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word ‘Wakf’ has been defined in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once the property is found to be a Wakf property as defined in Section 3(r), then any dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated before the Wakf Tribunal.
15. Under Section 83(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 the Tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and hence it has also powers under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunctions and enforce such injunctions. Hence, a full-fledged remedy is available to any party if there is any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property.
16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83(2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of Sections 83(1) and 84 indicates.
17. We may clarify that under the proviso to Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 a party aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal can approach the High Court which can call for the records for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision of the Tribunal. This provision make it clear that the intention of Parliament is that the party who wishes to raise any dispute or matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property should first approach the Tribunal before approaching the High Court.
19. It is well-settled that when there is a special law providing for a special forum, then recourse cannot be taken to the general law vide Justice G.P Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn. 2004, pp 133-134).
20. In Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors v. Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350, this Court held that when the matter fell in the area covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction. In the above decision the Court has referred to several earlier decisions on this point.
21. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that since the matter fell under the purview of the Wakf Act, only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter, and not the Civil Court.
22. However, in view of the decision of this Court in Sardar Khan v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1447, the Wakf Act will not be applicable to suits/appeals/revisions/proceedings commenced prior to 1.1.1996 when the Wakf Act came into force.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied on the decision of this Court in Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCALE 698. In the aforesaid decision it was held that eviction proceedings can only be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Wakf Tribunal.
24. The dispute in the present case is not an eviction dispute. Hence, the aforesaid decision in Ramesh Gobindram's case is distinguishable.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. We hold that only the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction in the matter and the parties can approach the Wakf Tribunal, if so advised. The appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.
Alert