Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Chand Bhatele (Delted) Through ... vs Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board Thr. on 1 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
1 CR No. 16/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 16 of 2022
SATISH CHAND BHATELE (DELTED) THROUGH LRS (I) MEERA
BHATELE AND OTHERS
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAQF BOARD, BHOPAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for applicants.
Shri F.A.Shah, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This civil revision, under section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short
"the Act"), has been filed against the order dated 1/12/2021 passed by M.P.
State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. B-62/2018.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that
respondent filed an application under section 54(4) of the Act before M.P.State
Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal for possession on the ground that applicant Satish
Chand Bhatele has encroached upon the Waqf property. It is not out of place to
mention here that Satish Chand Bhatele expired during the pendency of this
revision and, therefore, this revision is being prosecuted by his legal
representatives. It appears that Satish Chand Bhatele did not file any written
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
statement before the Waqf Tribunal and, ultimately, by order dated 1/12/2021,
Waqf Tribunal has passed the impugned order that Satish Chand Bhatele
should remove his encroachment within a period of 45 days.
3. Challenging the order passed by M.P. State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, it is
submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent had filed a suit for eviction
in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Gohad which was registered as
Civil Suit No.106A/2006. In the said civil suit, it was claimed by respondent
that Satish Chand Bhatele is the tenant. The said civil suit was partially
decreed and decree for eviction was refused. However, it was decreed that
respondent is entitled for arrears of rent from September, 2003 and the
tenant/Satish Chand Bhatele shall also continue to pay the future rent. Thus, it
is prayed that in suit filed by respondent itself it was admitted that original
defendant/Satish Chand Bhatele was tenant of respondent, but in an
application filed under section 54(4) of the Act, it was alleged that original
defendant/Satish Chand Bhatele has encroached upon 8.9 x 17 square feet of
land and has constructed Shop No.16. Thus, it is prayed that application filed
under section 54(4) of the Act alleging that defendant Satish Chand Bhatele
has encroached upon the property, was not maintainable being contrary to the
admission made by respondent itself in the civil suit.
4. Per contra it is submitted by counsel for respondent that notice of
application filed under section 54(4) of the Act was issued. Original defendant
Satish Chand Bhatele had also entered his appearance, but he did not file any
reply and did not lead any evidence. It is further submitted that no application
under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC has been filed for placing the record of trial
Court on record, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon by the applicant by
straight away filing those documents in civil revision.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. Copy of order sheets of the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal has been placed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
record and the same has not been disputed by counsel for respondent. From the
order sheets, it is clear that on 03.08.2018, an application under Section 54(4)
of the Act was filed and by order dated 07.08.2018 notices were issued.
Ultimately, applicant appeared before the Waqf Tribunal on 05.12.2018 and
prayed for permission to file reply. Permission was granted but it was also
observed that the record of Waqf Board has not been received. Accordingly,
the case was adjourned on 03.01.2019, 07.02.2019, 08.03.2019, 16.04.2019,
22.05.2019, 26/06/2019, 06.08.2019, 12.09.2019, 15.10.2019, 28.11.2019,
10.01.2020 for requisitioning of record. On 10.01.2020, it appears that counsel
for applicant did not appear and accordingly it was held that applicant is ex
parte and the case was fixed for 20.02.2020 for requisitioning the record of
Waqf Board. On 20.02.2020, 06.03.2020, the case was adjourned as record of
Waqf Board was not received. Thereafter, on account of nation-wide lockdown
due to Covid-19 pandemic, the case could not be taken up and accordingly it
was taken up for the first time on 02.08.2021 after reopening of the Tribunal.
On the said date also, applicant remained ex parte and it was once again
directed to requisition the record of Waqf Board and the case was fixed for
06.09.2021. On 06.09.2021 and 29.09.2021, again the case was adjourned for
requisitioning the record of Waqf Board. However, presence of counsel for
applicant is marked on the aforesaid dates. The case was then fixed for
15.11.2021, however, it appears that on account of the fact that 15.11.2021 was
declared as holiday, accordingly, the case was taken up on 16.11.2021 and on
the said date none had appeared for parties though the record of the Waqf
Board was received and the case was fixed for 26.11.2021 for arguments. On
26.11.2021, final arguments were heard and the case was fixed for passing of
order on 01.12.2021 and accordingly on 01.12.2021 the impugned order was
passed.
7. From the aforesaid order sheets, it is clear that there is no mention that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
evidence of Hashmat Ali was ever recorded. In the final order dated
01.12.2021, it has been mentioned in paragraph 10 that Hashmat Ali was
examined on behalf of respondent and certain documents were proved by him.
It was mentioned that applicant has not controverted the evidence led by
respondent and accordingly it was directed that applicant shall remove his
encroachment within a period of 45 days and shall hand over the vacant
possession of the property to the respondent.
8. In this revision, applicants have filed documents pertaining to civil suit
which was filed by respondent itself claiming therein that Satish Chand
Bhatele is a tenant and accordingly the suit for eviction was filed. An objection
was raised by Satish Chand Bhatele/the defendant therein with regard to
maintainability of the suit and in the said objection, it was mentioned by the
applicant that suit property is Waqf property and suit has not been filed by
Waqf. By order dated 15.10.2007, it was observed by the Civil Court that Civil
Suit filed by Hazi Babu Khan was not filed on behalf of Intezamia Committee.
It was observed that the suit can be amended and name of correct plaintiff can
be inserted. Later on, by order dated 24.10.2007, the array of cause-title was
amended in the civil suit and Intazamia Committee, Idgah Gohad, District
Bhind (M.P.) was made plaintiff. Ultimately, Civil Suit No.52-A/2007 was
partially allowed and by judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed in Civil
Suit No.52-A/2007, Civil Judge Class-I, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.)
dismissed the claim of respondent for eviction of applicant from the suit
premises and directed for payment of arrears of rent as well as future rent. It is
the case of applicant that in the previous litigation, respondent itself had
claimed that Satish Chand Bhatele was inducted as tenant, therefore, now, it
cannot take a somersault to claim that applicant has encroached upon the land
in dispute.
9. Admittedly, applicant did not file any reply before the Tribunal. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
documents filed by applicant pertaining to civil suit filed by the respondent
cannot be looked into against the respondent as no application under Order
XLI Rule 27 CPC has been filed.
10. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether M.P. State
Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, had followed correct procedure of law for deciding
application under Section 54(4) of the Act or not?
11. From the order-sheet dated 5/12/2018, it is clear that counsel for
applicant had entered appearance and sought time to file reply and,
accordingly, not only time was granted but the case was also adjourned and
direction was given to requisition the record of Waqf Board. From 5/12/2018,
the case was adjourned continuously upto 29/9/2021 for requisitioning the
record of Waqf Board. There is no mention in any of the order-sheets as to
whether any time was sought by applicants for filing written statement or not.
It appears that the record was received sometimes in the month of November,
2021, as evident from order-sheet dated 16/11/2021, and accordingly, the case
was fixed for final arguments on 26/11/2021 and on the said date final
arguments were heard.
12. Section 83 sub-section (5) and (6) of the Act reads as under:-
83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc -
(5) The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have
the same powers as may be exercised by a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or
executing a decree or order.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the Tribunal shall follow such
procedure as may be prescribed.
Thus, the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same
powers as may be exercised by a Civil Court under the CPC while trying a suit
or executing a decree or order and the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as
may be prescribed.
13. In this revision, the applicant himself has relied upon documents and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
pleadings of parties in the suit which was instituted by the Intezamiya
Committee Idgah Gohad, District Bhind before the appellate Court and was
ultimately registered as RCSA No.52/2007. In those proceedings, a specific
stand was taken by applicant that property in question is a Waqf property.
Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that the property in dispute is a Waqf
property. As already pointed out, this Court cannot look into the documents of
Civil Court for giving a decision against respondent as those documents were
not filed before the Waqf Tribunal and have not been filed along with this civil
revision along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC.
14. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether applicant can
be made to suffer on account of non filing of written statement before the Waqf
Tribunal or not ?
15. As already pointed out, applicant had appeared before the Waqf Tribunal
on 5/12/2018 and sought time to file written statement and time was granted.
Thereafter, from the subsequent order-sheets it is clear that no time was ever
sought by the applicant to file written statement. Order 8 Rule 1, CPC provides
that written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date
of service of summons and the said period may be extended by the Court by
recording reasons in writing, which shall not be later than 90 days from the
date of service of summons. The Supreme Court in the case of Salem
Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India reported in AIR
2005 SC 3353 has held that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1, CPC are not
mandatory but are directory and under certain circumstances, the trial Court
can extend the period for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days.
Thus, it is clear that it was obligatory on the part of applicant to file written
statement within a period of 30 days and if applicant was unable to file written
statement, then it was obligatory on his part to seek further time to file written
statement. No such application was filed by the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13213
16. Under these circumstances, the provision of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC would
come into operation that where defendant fails to file written statement as
required under Order 8 Rule 1 or Rule 9 CPC, then the trial Court can pass a
judgment and decree. In the present case, Waqf Tribunal has passed the final
order on 1/12/2021 as no written statement was filed by the applicant. It was
the case of respondent that applicant has encroached upon the land and he is an
encroacher. As already pointed out, in the civil suit, applicant himself had
admitted that property in dispute is a Waqf property. Since no written
statement was filed by the applicant, therefore the Waqf Tribunal was under an
obligation to decide the application on the basis of material which was
available on record. On account of non-filing of reply before the Waqf
Tribunal, the Tribunal could not get any opportunity to adjudicate the question
regarding the status of Satish Chand Bhatele. Under these circumstances, this
Court is of considered opinion that the Waqf Tribunal did not commit any
illegality by passing the order of eviction/dispossession of applicant thereby
directing him to remove his possession within 45 days and to hand over vacant
possession of property in dispute to M.P.Waqf Board/Adhyaksh,Waqf
Prabhand Committee, Waqf Idgah Va Dukanaat, Kasba Gohad, Ganj Baazar,
Jila Bhind.
17. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
18. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
19. Interim order dated 22/02/2022 is hereby vacated.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(and) Judge
