ORDER
C.S. Rajan, J.
1. The legal question to be decided in this case is whether the 5th respondent has jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P2 petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 and to decide the same under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The prayer in Ext. P2 is to
pass a decree declaring that the office of Mutawalli of the Mosque scheduled in the petition is vested with the Pattakkal family and that the first plain-tiff in Ext. P2 was duly chosen to be the Mutawalli of the Mosque and for consequential reliefs.
2. According to the petitioners, Section 83(2) of the Act clearly contemplates that any person aggrieved by the order passed under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder may file an application challenging the same. Therefore in the absence of any order passed either by the Wakf Board or by the Chief Executive Officer under the provisions of the Act, determining the Mutawalliship of the Mosque, the 5th respondent cannot decide any dispute with regard to the Mutawalliship of a Mosque as an Original Petition. Thus it was contended that the nature of the jurisdiction of the 5th respondent Tribunal is as an appellate body and not as a Tribunal having any original jurisdiction. –
3. On the other hand, it was contended by the first respondent that Section 63 of the Act confers power on the Wakf Board to appoint Mutawalli only if there is a vacancy of Mutawalli. In the present case, there is no vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli so as to invoke Section 63 of the Act. A combined reading of Sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of Section 83 of the Act will go to show that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to determine any dispute regarding a Wakf or a Wakf property. Thus, according to the first respondent, the 5th respondent can entertain Original Applications to determine any dispute regarding the Wakf property.
4. In order to appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions contained in the Act. Section 83 of the Act deals with the constitution of Tribunal etc. According to the above section, the State Government shall constitute the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, and to define the local limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunal. Under Section 83(2) any Mutawalli or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act or Rules may make an application to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent brought to my notice a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Subhan Shah v.
M.P. Wakf Board, AIR 1997 Madh Pra 8. In the above ruling a similar provision as that of Section 83 contained in Section 55 of the Wakf (M.P. Amendment) Act was considered. In the above ruling the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that any question with regard to any dispute relating to a Wakf or Wakf properly can be decided by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants to restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to matters covered by any orders passed by the Wakf Bpard under the Act or the Rules. But Sections 83(J) and (2) operate in different fields. Under Section 83(1) of the Act, the Tribunal constituted by the Government can decide any dispute, question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property. This is an original jurisdiction. Under Section 83(2) of the Act, any Mutawalli person interested in a Wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act or Rules made thereunder can also approach the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf. Thus under Sub-section (2) of Section 83, the legality of an order passed by the Wakf Board under the Act is liable to be challenged by any Mutawalli or any other aggrieved person. Thus it cannot be contended that the Tribunal is clothed with the jurisdiction only when an order is passed by the Wakf Board under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 83 makes it abundantly clear that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is wide enough to determine any dispute or question or other matter relating to the Wakf or Wakf property.
Therefore I do not find any reason to restrict the jurisdiction of the 5th respondent Tribunal. The Original Petition is dismissed.