Bombay High Court Rules on Civil Court and Wakf Tribunal Jurisdiction over Wakf Property Disputes. Court Considers Maintainability of Civil Suit Without Declaration of Title and Effect of Pending Civil Proceedings on Tribunal's Jurisdiction Under Section 7(5) of Wakf Act, 1995.

Dispute over an open plot claimed as Wakf property and possession between Hindu and Muslim communities; civil suit and revision/second appeal challenging civil court decree and Wakf Tribunal order.

In the civil suit, the Marathwada Wakf Board sought declaration that the order of SDM under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was not binding and for possession of suit plot; in second appeal, original defendants 6 and 10 sought to set aside decrees of trial court and first appellate court; in revision, Wakf Board challenged the Wakf Tribunal's decree declaring Government Gazette entry void.

Quarrel over suit plot led to police report and SDM proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.; suit plot listed as Wakf property in Government Gazette dated 24.4.1980; Wakf Board filed civil suit in 1988 for declaration and possession.

SDM by order dated 24.5.1979 held defendants 6 and 10 in possession and passed prohibitory orders against defendants 8 and 9. Trial court in RCS No.3 of 1998 decreed plaintiff's suit and held civil court had no jurisdiction over validity of Government Gazette. First appeal dismissed. Separately, Wakf Tribunal in Suit No.7 of 2003 decreed defendants' suit declaring Government Gazette dated 24.04.1980 void ab initio.

Whether Regular Civil Suit No.177/1988 renumbered as RCS No.03/1998 is maintainable without a specific prayer for declaration of title when title is seriously disputed. Whether the suit as framed can be decreed based on issue of title without a prayer for declaration of title, in light of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy. Whether the Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain Suit No.7 of 2003 or was barred under Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 because the same matter was pending in a civil court or appeal. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 66(G) of the Wakf Act, 1954. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to deal with the validity of the Government Gazette dated 24.04.1980.

Defendants/appellants argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 to decide whether the property was Wakf; the suit was barred by limitation under Section 66(G) of the 1954 Act; the SDM order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was not challenged before proper forum; the Gazette entry was not conclusive proof of title; and the first appellate court ignored the Wakf Tribunal's judgment. Defendants/appellants relied on the SDM order and claimed uninterrupted possession based on village panchayat record of 1960. Plaintiff/respondent argued that Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 applied; the SDM order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. did not confer title and was an interim arrangement subject to civil court decision; the civil court correctly entertained the suit; and the Wakf Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 7(5) of the Wakf Act, 1995 because the same matter was pending in civil court or appeal. Plaintiff/respondent contended that the Tribunal's order was apparently against the rights declared in the civil suit and that the cause of action arose before the 1995 Act, so the suit was governed by the 1954 Act.

The court considered that an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is an interim arrangement to prevent breach of peace and does not confer title; it is subject to Civil Court decision. Under the Wakf Act, 1954, disputes regarding Wakf property were to be filed in civil court of competent jurisdiction; after the Wakf Act, 1995, Section 7(5) bars Tribunal jurisdiction over matters already pending before a civil court at commencement. A suit for possession without declaration of title is not maintainable when title is seriously disputed and plaintiff is not in possession, as per Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy. However, the final ratio decidendi is not extractable from the incomplete text provided.

The issues and the suit property involved in the second appeal and the Civil Revision application were the same. The Court of First Instance believed the plaintiff and decreed the suit. He also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the Government Gazette dated 24.4.1980, inserting the suit plot as a Wakf property. The Tribunal did not accept the objection and decreed the suit, holding that the said Government Gazette is void ab initio.

On 24.5.1979, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udgir passed order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. holding defendants 6 and 10 in possession and passed prohibitory orders against defendants 8 and 9. On 24.4.1980, suit plot was listed as Wakf property in Government Gazette. In 1988, Marathwada Wakf Board filed Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 1988 (later renumbered RCS No.03 of 1998) for declaration and possession. Trial court decreed the suit on 26.09.2002, holding civil court had no jurisdiction over validity of Gazette. First appeal Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2002 was dismissed by District Judge, Nilanga on 06.09.2007. While appeal pending, defendants filed Suit No.7 of 2003 before Wakf Tribunal challenging Gazette; Tribunal decreed it declaring Gazette void ab initio. Thereafter, Wakf Board filed Civil Revision Application No.1 of 2005, and defendants filed Second Appeal No.759 of 2007 with Civil Application No.10765 of 2007. High Court heard both together and reserved judgment on 03.10.2023, pronounced on 20.12.2023.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 145
• Wakf Act, 1954: Section 6(1), Section 66(G)
• Wakf Act, 1995: Section 7, Section 7(5)