WPMS/1063/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1023 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPMS 1063/2023
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate, for the State.

Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate, i/b Ms. Nishat Intezar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.

Mr. Bhuwant Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent no. 4.

(2) Petitioner purchased a property situate at Landhor, Mussoorie in District Dehradun by means of a registered sale deed on 31.5.2022, for ₹1,55,50,000/-. According to petitioner, his predecessor had purchased the said property in an auction held pursuant to an order passed

of 1971. Petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 9.3.2023, issued by Chief Executive Officer, Uttarakhand Wakf Board to Inspector General, Stamp and Registration, Uttarakhand. By the said letter, Uttarakhand Wakf Board has asserted that the property purchased by petitioner is a wakf property and is registered as such in the waqf register as Waqf No. 29, therefore, the concerned authorities may be asked not to register any gift deed, sale deed or other conveyance deed in respect of the said property, without permission of Uttarakhand Wakf Board.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the property purchased by petitioner is not a wakf property and he relies upon the municipal records in support of this contention that the property, in question, was never treated as wakf property.

(4) Learned Counsel for the Municipal Board also supports petitioner and submits that the property, in question, is registered in the municipal records as 'Kohinoor Building' since 1935-

36.

(5) Learned Counsel for Uttarakhand Wakf Board was asked to get instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, he has produced the extract of wakf register and submits that property no. 173-174 is registered as Wakf Khacherkhan (Wakf No. 29). Thus, he submits that since the property, in question, is registered as wakf property in the relevant register maintained under Section 37 of the Wakf Act, 1995, therefore, the only remedy available to petitioner is to approach the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act. He also refers to Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995 in support of his contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute as to whether the property, in question, is a wakf property or not. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Indari & Others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414. (6) In view of the express provision contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute as to whether property is a wakf property or not cannot be decided in a writ petition. Since there is remedy available to petitioner under the Wakf Act, therefore, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy, granting liberty to petitioner to approach the Wakf Tribunal. (7) In case petitioner approaches the Wakf Tribunal, this Court hopes and expects that the Tribunal shall make endeavour to decide petitioner's suit as early as possible.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.4.2023 Pr