S. Malik, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application against the order dated 30 -3 -1972 passed by the Tribunal (District Judge, Kumaun) under the Muslim Waqfs Act (U.P. Act No. XVI of 1960) rejecting a reference made to it Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63 of the said Act against an order passed Under Sub -section (2) of Section 63 by the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) removing the Applicants who were appointed by the Board earlier is a Committee of Management to (sic) the Waqf property comprising oil a grave -yard and Idgah. The Tribunal did not reject the reference on merits but rejected it because, it was of the view that the reference was incompetent as no notice as contemplated Under Section 65 had been served oh the Board.
(2.) SO the only question before this Court is whether it is necessary to serve a notice on the Board as contemplated Under Section 65 of the Act in restart of a reference made to a Tribunal Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63. The Tribunal had held that the word "suit" used in Section 65 includes a "reference" made Under Sub -Section (3) of Section 63. The learned Counsel for the Applicants contended that the Tribunal was wrong in its conclusions because a perusal of various sections of the said Apt would show that by the word "suit" used in Section 65 the Legislature did not include a "reference" provided Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63. I find myself in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Applicants. I see no reason why in Section 65 the word "reference" should not also have been included besides the word "suit" if it was the intention of the Legislature that a two months notice should be served on the Board Under Section 65 of the said Act before a reference Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63 was mace to a Tribunal. I may have agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal if it had appeared from a perusal of the various provisions of the Actual the only thing the Board could do under, the Act was to pass an order Under Sub -Section (2) of Section 63. It does not appear necessary to enumerate the various acts the Board has been empowered to do under the Act. For example, a beneficiary may apply to the Board for the removal of a Mutwalli or a Committee of Management and the Board may refuse to do so whereupon a beneficiary may bring a suit against the Board for not passing a proper order under the Act. Similarly, under this Act the Board may itself take over management of Waqf property and against that also a suit may be filed alleging that the Board had not taken into consideration the wishes of the Wakif as enumerated in the Waqf deed and should have appointed someone as Mutwalli as provided in the Waqf deed. In all such suits a notice would be necessary as contemplated in Section 65. In this connection, reference may also be made to Section 75 of the Act, it lays down: No person shall institute any suit, or other proceeding in any Civil Court with respect to any dispute or question or matter which is required or permitted under this Act to be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication. In this section the words "suit" as well as "reference" have been used.
(3.) IT is true that in view of Section 75, it is apparent that a reference made Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63 has to be disposed of by the Tribunal in the same manner as a suit but due to that, to my mind, it could not be; said that a "reference" Under Sub -Section (3) of Section 63 is included by the word "suit" in Section 65. It may be pointed out that a reference Under Sub -section (3) of Section 63 has a very limited scope and such a reference can be made only against an order passed by the Board Under Sub -section (2) of Section 63.;