Smt. Ishrat Jahan & Others ... vs Uttarakhand Waqf Board & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 913 UK

              HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
                          Civil Revision No.53 of 2020

Smt. Ishrat Jahan & others                                        .....Revisionists
                                            Vs.

Uttarakhand Waqf Board & others                                   ....Respondents

Advocate : Ms. Abhilasha Belwal, Advocate for the revisionists.
           Mr. Ahrar Beg, Advocate for the respondents.


Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These are three Civil Revisions preferred under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act. This order would be confined to the Civil Revision No.53 of 2020, only.

2. In Civil Revision No.53 of 2020, the revisionist herein has put a challenge to the order of 15.02.2020, which was passed by the Waqf Tribunal in Case No.08 of 2016, Smt. Salma Parveen and others vs. Waqf Board and others, which has been dismissed on the ground that since the propriety of two orders, which was a subject matter of consideration in the proceedings before the Tribunal by way of Case No.08 of 2016, for scrutinizing the judicious propriety of orders of 14.01.2009 and 20.01.2009 since a subsequent challenge has been given to it , by the revisionist to the two orders in Waqf Appeal No.24 of 2009, and Waqf Appeal No.23 of 2009 and the appeals itself has now been finally adjudicated. The Tribunal has held that keeping the matter pending, would not solve any issue because for the reason that now the issue against the two orders, stand merged with the appellate court's judgment, which are now the subject matter of challenge in the connected revisions which arising out of the Waqf Appeal No.24 of 2009 and Waqf Appeal No.23 of 2009.

3. Considering the logic given in the impugned order under challenge in the present revision, I too endorsed the same opinion that no fruitful purpose, would be solved to scrutinize the veracity of Case No.08 of 2016, where the challenge was given to the order of 14.01.2009 and 20.01.2009, because that was a notice under Section 52 of the Act, because under the principle of merger after the adjudication made in the Waqf Appeal No.24 of 2009 and Waqf Appeal No.23 of 2009, the subject matter of the two orders are still left to be open to be argued by the revisionist and their counsel in the other connected revisions, which has been preferred against the final adjudication of the appeals, which were preferred by the revisionist.

4. In that view of the matter, leaving all the issues and aspects to be agitated by her in relation to the order of 14.01.2009 and 20.01.2009, which are also one of the foundations for passing the appellate court's judgment under challenge in the connected revisions, the present revision is dismissed, with the liberty open to the revisionist to agitate all her causes as against the two orders of 14.01.2009 and 20.01.2009, in the connected Revision Nos.54 of 2020 and 55 of 2020.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 16.03.2021 Arti