S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
(2.) THERE existed a registered waqf, namely, Waqf Husaini Sirai, Rampur. The property in dispute is a strip of land being part of a larger piece of land, which has been recorded in the register of waqf as the property of Waqf Husaini Sarai, Rampur. The Petitioner Shin Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, issued a notice, which was received by the Respondent No. 2, Irshad All, on 21 -11 -1974 asking him to vacate the land, which was the property of the waqf. The Collector by an order dated 9 -12 -1974 asked Irshad AH to vacate the land as it was waqf property. After this notice was received from the Collector, Irshad Ali filed a Suit No. 40 of 1975 in the court of Munsif, Rampur, for a permanent injunction against the waqf Board alleging that the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with the property as it was the waqf property. Before the Munsif, the Petitioner Board took an objection that the suit was not maintainable. A preliminary issue was framed in regard to the maintainability of the suit. The trial court did not agree with the Petitioner Board. Thereafter the Board filed an Appeal No. 30 of 1976 in the court of District Judge. In the court of District Judge, 'it was finally adjudicated upon that the civil court has no jurisdiction. Irshad Ali filed two proceedings against the order of the Collector, one was an appeal and the other was a reference to the tribunal under the provisions of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. Along with the appeal and the reference, Irshad Ali also filed an application for condonation of the delay. The District Judge by an order dated 20 -1 -1977 condoned the delay in moving the appeal as well as the reference and registered both the appeal and the reference. It is this order dated 20 -1 -1977, which has been challenged in the present petition. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended firstly that the District Judge wrongly condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the reference. The second submission of the Learned Counsel is that in any case no reference lies against the notice issued by the Collector and the reference is wholly without jurisdiction and the proceedings in the reference be quashed as two simultaneous proceedings against the same order are liable to create confusion and harassment to the Petitioner.
(3.) IN my opinion so far as the first contention is concerned, it has no substance. The District Judge after considering the facts on the record came to the conclusion that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay in filing appeal and the reference. This is clearly a finding of fact and as such, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard.;