Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this revisional application is the order dated July 20, 2016 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") in Title Suit No. 3 of 2010 filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner claims to be in possession of Premises No. 17, Mullen Street, Kolkata, comprising a plot of land measuring about 6 cottahs, together with eighteen rooms of temporary chhettabera structure standing thereon (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises"). According to the petitioner, the suit premises is a thika land and with the promulgation of the Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 the suit premises vested in the State of West Bengal. However, on December 24, 2009 the opposite party no. 3, that is, the Chief Executive Officer, Board of Wakf, West Bengal issued an order declaring the petitioner as the encroacher of the suit premises and directed him to vacate the suit premises.
(3.) In March, 2010 the petitioner filed the suit, being Suit No. 3 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal, against the opposite parties claiming, declarations that the suit premises is a thika property and has vested for which the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (in short "the Act of 1995") is not applicable and that he is not an encroacher of the suit premises within the meaning of the Act of 1995. The petitioner also claimed quashing of the said order dated December 24, 2009 passed by the opposite party no. 3. In the suit, the petitioner also filed an injunction application praying for, stay of operation of the order dated December 24, 2009 passed by the opposite party no. 3 but, by order dated August 04, 2010 the learned Tribunal rejected the said application. In the said injunction application, the present opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed their written objection alleging that by a registered deed of wakfnama dated July 29, 1904 (hereinafter referred to as "the said wakfnama dated July 29, 1904"), one Abdul Latif and four others dedicated the suit premises and some other properties to the Abdul Latif and others wakf estate (hereinafter referred to as "the said wakf estate"). Challenging the said order dated August 4, 2010 the petitioner approached this Court by filing the revisional application, being C.O. 2623 of 2010. In the said revisional application on September 10, 2010 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order restraining the opposite parties from disturbing petitioner's possession in respect the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. The opposite party no. 4, the Mutwalli of the wakf estate filed her written statement in the suit alleging the suit premises a wakf property. Since the opposite parties alleged that on the strength of the said wakfnama dated July 29, 1904 the suit premises is a wakf property, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Tribunal for direction upon the opposite parties to produce the said wakfnama dated July 29, 1904 and to decide whether the suit premises is wakf property, then the order dated December 24, 2009 passed by the opposite party no. 3 against him be set aside. However, by order dated April 16, 2012 the learned Court below directed that the said prayer of the petitioner shall be considered after framing of the issues in the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated April 16, 2012 the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in the revisional application, being C.O. 1549 of 2012. By order dated April 16, 2012 as modified by order dated May 16, 2012 a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said revisional application by directing the opposite parties to produce the original wakfnama dated July 29, 1904 before the learned Tribunal, who would also decide whether the matter should be decided on the basis of the said document alone or any further evidence. The opposite parties, however, did not produce the original wakfnama. In January, 2013 the petitioner filed a fresh application before the learned Tribunal praying for, an order to decide whether the suit premises is a wakf property or not.;