SHRI VASHDEO HOONDAMAL Vs. COLLECTOR, EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of this writ petition is a wakf property situated in a part of Shillong town (Meghalaya State) which is regarded as non-tribal area and was formerly part of British India. Petitioner claims to have obtained the disputed land on lease under a registered lease deed dated 12.4.1972 executed by him and the then mulawali. He is aggrieved by Annexure-VIII order dated 18.7.1986 passed by the Collector, East Khasi Hills, Shillong under section 36B(2)of the Wakf Act, 1954 requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the property to the second respondent, Meghalaya Board of Wakf within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and informing him that in default thereof action shall be taken for his eviction therefrom. This order is now challenged.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, representing the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Fourth respondent is not represented.

(3.) Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the order of the first respondent. Subsection (4) of section 36B of the Wakf Act, 1954 states that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector under sub-section (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order, prefer an appeal to the district court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the decision of the district court on such appeal shall be final. The impugned order of the Collector was passed under sub-section (2) of section 36B on a requisition by the Wakf Board under sub-section (1) of section 36B. Therefore, petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. There is no averment in the writ petition that the statutory remedy is for any reason not effective or efficacious. Hence, this is a case where me court will decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and if provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable, to file an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The applicability of section 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may also have to be considered.