Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Decd Saiyed Mohamad Abbas ... vs Hushen Haji Arandiya on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/CRA/264/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 264 of 2022
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECD SAIYED MOHAMAD ABBAS MIYA & 2 other(s)
Versus
HUSHEN HAJI ARANDIYA & 15 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HASIT H JOSHI(2480) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Opponent(s) No. 15
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,16,2,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 03/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application raises an issue with respect to
the authority and jurisdiction of the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal
determining the proceedings and respective cases by a coram of
less-than three members as per provisions of Section 83 Sub-
section 4 of the Gujarat Waqf Act (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act').
2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Gandhi appearing on behalf
of learned advocate Mr. Hasit Joshi does not press this Civil
Revision Application against unserved respondents. Hence, Rule,
returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. M. A. Kharadi waives
service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, whereas
learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah waives service of rule on behalf
of respondent No.15.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the
impugned order is passed by only two members of the Tribunal and
C/CRA/264/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022
therefore, the same is in the teeth of the provision of Section 83
Sub-section 4 of the Act. Therefore, it is required to be interfered
with under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
3.1 It is further submitted that Section 83(4) of the Act
provides that every Tribunal shall consists of the Chairman and two
members and the Tribunal shall deem to be duly constituted by all
the three members.
3.2 It is further submitted that unless and until the case is
determined by a duly constituted Tribunal i.e. by all the three
members. Its decision would be "Coram non-judis" and can be
termed as an order without jurisdiction.
3.3 It is therefore submitted that the judgment and the
impugned order in the present Civil Revision Application is non-est
and passed by the Tribunal not duly constituted under the Act for
the determination of the issues before it.
3.4 Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is
required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to
be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh by
duly constituted Tribunal in terms of Section 83(4) of the Act.
4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants
submitted that at the relevant point of time, the Tribunal was not
duly constituted. But thereafter, by Notification dated 27.12.2021
all the three members have been appointed and now the Tribunal
stands duly constituted under the Act.
4.1 It was therefore submitted that the impugned order can
be set aside and can be remanded back to the duly constituted
Tribunal to be decided afresh.
C/CRA/264/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the fact that now the learned Tribunal
stands duly constituted, the impugned order is quashed and set
aside and the present case is remanded to the learned Waqf
Tribunal for a decision afresh by the duly constituted Tribunal.
6. The parties be issued fresh Notice in Waqf Application
No.13 of 2016 and the Learned Tribunal is directed to decide the
case as expeditiously as possible and preferable within a period of
9 months from the date of receipt of this order. Civil Revision
Application accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
