- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order of the Civil Judge (S.D.), Sant Kabir Nagar, dated 13.8.2012 passed in exercise of powers as a Wakf Tribunal. Sub-Section 9 of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf Act) provides that any dispute question or matter which has been determined by the tribunal is revisable by the High Court. The aforesaid provision reads as under : (9) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order whether interim or otherwise, given or made by the Tribunal Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm, reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may think fit. The order impugned herein is an order passed by the Wakf Tribunal deciding finally, the issue of jurisdiction in the pending reference. Thus, it is an order deciding the question of jurisdiction finally and as such is revisable.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is not revisable as it is not a final award. In support he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Naqshe Ali v. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board,1970 AllLJ 815. In the said case his Lordship of this Court was seized with the question whether the order passed under the U.P. Muslim (sic) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was revisable under Section 76 of the Act. The Court held that the power of revision under Section 76 of the Act cannot be exercised by the High Court till an award has come into existence.
(3.) On the basis of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is trying to draw an inference that revision is maintainable only when a final award is made by the Wakf Tribunal and not against any interlocutory order passed it. The language of Section 76 of the Act is at much variance with the provisions of Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act. Section 76 of the Act reads as under : 76. The award of a Tribunal shall be final and conclusive and binding upon the parties concerned and the award shall have the force of decree and it shall neither be questioned nor appealed against in any Court of law : Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, at any time suo motu or on the application of the Board or of any person aggrieved, call for and examine the record of any case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any award made under this Act, and pass such orders as it deems fit. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that it provides for a remedy of revision only against the award made under the Act and not against any other order whereas under the Wakf Act all orders relating to any dispute question or matter which has been determined by the tribunal are revisable by the High Court. The ambit of Section 89 of the Wakf Act is much wider than that of Section 76 of the Act. In view of above, I am of the opinion that as the order impugned is an order deciding the question regarding the jurisdiction of the tribunal, which has been finally determined it is revisable under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy so provided in law. The certified copy of the impugned order annexed with the writ petition is directed to be returned to the counsel for the petitioners after retaining the photo copy on record.;