- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21st May, 2012 passed by the Rajasthan Waqf Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing the petitioners-plaintiffs application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC as also the objections to the report of the Commissioner subsequent to local inspection under Order 29 Rule 10 of CPC.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/caveator UIT, Kota and perused the impugned order. The Rajasthan Waqf Tribunal under the impugned order arrived at a finding that the construction of the bridge was not over the Khasra No. 698/247 admeasuring 0.24 hectare and Khasra No. 699/261 admeasuring 0.14 hectares, where the cemetery was located for the burial of the dead. The Tribunal also found that construction of the elevated road to which the petitioners' had objected and sought injunction against, was being made over a different khasra and parcel of land standing in the name of Public Works Department. The findings of Waqf Tribunal are not perverse on the material before it and thus, not amenable to the interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The limitations of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have been well delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, wherein it has been held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserve and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice and though unfettered are subject to a high degree of judicial discipline. In the case of Jai Singh versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 has held that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised with care, circumspection and caution and only where there is a dereliction of duty by the court or the Tribunal below or where the impugned order is based on abuse of the fundamental principles of law. None of the two situations obtain in the present case. The Tribunal has held that the pillar/s for the construction of the elevated road were being made in Khasra No. 247 in which the Public Works Department had 0.52 hectares. This fact also obtained in the report of the Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC objections whereto were dismissed by the trial court under under one of the two impugned order dated 21st May, 2012. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him on local inspection under an order passed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC constitutes evidence in the suit and forms part of the record. I find no good ground in the circumstances obtaining to take a contrary view in the writ petition, as the cemetery to an extent of 0.38 hectares stands in Khasra No. 698/247 admeasuring 0.24 hectare and Khasra No. 699/261 admeasuring 0.14 hectares has, on evidence before the trial court, not been disturbed. The petitioners are even otherwise seeking in the present writ petition to impugn the making of an elevated road which is palpably a work of public interest. I thus, find no force in the writ petition or the necessity to exercise the discretionary power of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the case. In view of above, the writ petition stands dismissed. ;