# Waqf Nawab Amjad Ali Khan Revisionist v. The Waqf Tribunal At Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 582
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 104 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/waqf-nawab-amjad-ali-khan-revisionist-v-the-waqf-tribunal-at-lucknow-anr-45713
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Waqf Act, 1995-Section 83-Application
under section 83 of the Act rejected-relief of
eviction of defendant tenant -and for recovery
of rent, arrears and damages-not maintainableheld civil court is the remedy-section 83 has
been ammended-ammendment not taken note
in impugned order-Tribunal is empowered for
determining
the
issue-impugned
order
quashed-Revision allowed.

Held, In view of the amended provision
Tribunals are empowered for determination of
any dispute, question or other matter relating
to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant
or determination of rightsand obligations of the
lessor and the lessee of such property, under
the Act, 1995. The ammended provision has
not been taken noteby the Tribunal and it has
erred in relying upon decisions which are not
based on the ammended provision but are
based on the provision existing prior to the
amendment. (Para 6)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Vol. 23) 1061, where the Court has relied
on various judgment passed by this Court
has concluded that there should be clear
finding of fact by the concerned authority
that the goods were been transported with
intention to evade tax due or likely to be
due under the Act and unless such a
finding is recorded no penalty can be
imposed.

20. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties as well as
various legal pronouncements discussed
above, it is clear that there was no clear
finding
recorded
by
the
authorities
concerned to the effect that there was
intention to evade tax under the Act. The
finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
have not been rebutted by the revenue and
therefore they have attained finality.

21. It is clear that the machine in
question was found not in working
condition and has been returned back and
even otherwise no concluded transaction
took place on which penalty could have
been imposed by the revenue.

22. In the light of the above, the
revision succeeds and impugned order
dated 02.01.2010, passed by the Tribunal
is hereby set aside.

23. The revision stands allowed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A582

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Revision No. 104 of 2019

Waqf Nawab Amjad Ali Khan
 ...Revisionist
Versus
The Waqf Tribunal At Lucknow & Anr.
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Syed Ajaz Haider Rizvi, Mohd. Husain Rizvi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Bhola Singh Patel, Pravin Kumar Verma

A. Waqf Act, 1995-Section 83-Application
under section 83 of the Act rejected-relief of
eviction of defendant tenant -and for recovery
of rent, arrears and damages-not maintainableheld civil court is the remedy-section 83 has
been ammended-ammendment not taken note
in impugned order-Tribunal is empowered for
determining
the
issue-impugned
order
quashed-Revision allowed.

Held, In view of the amended provision
Tribunals are empowered for determination of
any dispute, question or other matter relating
to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a tenant
or determination of rightsand obligations of the
lessor and the lessee of such property, under
the Act, 1995. The ammended provision has
not been taken noteby the Tribunal and it has
erred in relying upon decisions which are not
based on the ammended provision but are
based on the provision existing prior to the
amendment. (Para 6)

List of cases cited:-

1. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. vs.
Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf, (2010) 8 SCC 726

2. Faseela m. vs. Munnerul Islam Madrasa
Committee and another ; (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
419

3. Haji Ali Akbar vs. Waqf Alal-Allah/Alal Khair
aqf-W.P. no. 330/2019

4. Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike,
(2019) 4 SCC 698 (refferred)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
2 All. Waqf Nawab Amjad Ali Khan Vs. The Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow & Anr.
583

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties as well as Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned
Advocate who assisted the Court in the
matter.

2. The challenge herein is to an order
dated 04.10.2019 passed by U.P. Waqf
Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Suit No. 20 of
2019; Waqf Nawab Amjad Ali Khan Vs.
Mohd. Afzal by which application of the
revisionist under Section 83 has been
rejected on the ground that relief of
eviction of defendant-tenant from Waqf
property and for recovery of rent, arrears
and damages is not maintainable before
the Waqf Tribunal and for this relief the
petitioner-applicant
would
have
to
approach the Civil Court, as, the suit is not
covered by the disputes specified in
Section 6 and 7 of U.P. Waqf Act, 1995.
Accordingly, applying Order VII Rule 10
CPC the Waqf Tribunal has returned the
plaint to the petitioner for presentation
before the proper Court.

3. In taking this view the Tribunal
has been persuaded by the decisions of the
Supreme Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC
726; Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through
LRs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Waqf,
(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 419; Faseela M. Vs.
Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee and
Anr. and a decision of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of Haji Ali Akbar Vs.
Waqf
Alal-Allah/Alal
Khair
Waqf
rendered on 24.01.2019 in Petition No.
330 of 2019.

4. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid
decisions the Court finds that all the said
decisions pertain to a factual scenario
existing prior to the amendment in Section
83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 by Act No. 27 of
2013 and the proceedings in question had
been initiated prior to the said amendment.
By the Act 27 of 2013 the following
provision has been substituted as Section
83(1):-

"(1) The State Government shall,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute as many Tribunals as it may
think fit, for the determination of any
dispute, question or other matter relating
to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a
tenant or determination of rights and
obligations of the lessor and the lessee of
such property, under this Act and define
the local limits and jurisdiction of such
Tribunals."

5. The amending Act of 2013 has
come into effect w.e.f. 01.11.2013 as per
Notification dated 29.10.2013 which reads
as under:-

"In exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1
of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (No.
27 of 2013), the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st day of November,
2013 as the date on which the provisions
of the said Act shall come into force."

6. In view of the amended provision
Tribunals
are
empowered
for
determination of any dispute, question or
other matter relating to a waqf or waqf
property,
eviction
of
a
tenant
or
determination of rights and obligations of
the lessor and the lessee of such property,
under the Act, 1995. The amended
provision has not been taken note of by the
Tribunal and it has erred in relying upon
decisions which are not based on the
amended provision but are based on the
provision existing prior to the amendment.

7. The Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow
has been constituted by Notification dated
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
03.03.2014 subsequent to the aforesaid
amendment of 2013.

8. Reference may also be made to
Paragraph 45 to 47 of a recent decision of
the Supreme Court reported in (2019) 4
SCC 698; Punjab Wakf Board Vs.
Sham Singh Harike which was placed
before the Court by Sri Q.H. Rizvi which
read as under:-

"45. Section 83 sub-section (1)
has been substituted by Act 27 of 2013.
Substituted sub-section (1) is as follows:

"83. Constitution of Tribunals,
etc. - (1) The State Government shall, by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette,
constitute as many Tribunals as it may
think fit, for the determination of any
dispute, question or other matter relating
to a waqf or waqf property, eviction of a
tenant or determination of rights and
obligations of the lessor and the lessee of
such property, under this Act and define
the local limits and jurisdiction of such
Tribunals."

46. Section 83 sub-section (1)
specifically includes eviction of a tenant or
determination of rights or obligations of
the lessor and lessee of such property.

47. In both the suits giving rise
to these appeals the suits were filed much
before the amendment of Section 83 by Act
27 of 2013. We, thus, in the present case
have to interpret Section 83 as it existed
prior to the above Amendment, 2013."

9. In the aforesaid case the Supreme
Court was judging the validity of legal
proceedings initiated prior to the amendment
of 2013, as such, though it took notice of the
amendment of 2013, it considered the pre
amendment provisions.

10. Section 85 of the Act, 1995 relating
to Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court is as
under:-

"85. Bar of jurisdiction of civil
courts.- No suit or other legal proceeding shall
lie in any civil court, revenue court and any
other authority in respect of any dispute,
question or other matter relating to any waqf,
waqf property or other matter which is
required by or under this Act to be determined
by a Tribunal."

11. In this regard Para 53 of the decision
of the Supreme Court in Punjab Wakf Board
(supra) is relevant and it is as under:-

"53. Coming to Section 83 which
relates to bar of jurisdiction in civil court, the
relevant words are "any dispute, question or
other matter relating to a wakf or wakf
property" which is required by or under this
Act to be determined by the Tribunal. Thus,
bar of jurisdiction of civil court is confined
only to those matters which are required to be
determined by the Tribunal under this Act.
Thus, the civil court shall have jurisdiction to
entertain the suit and proceedings which are
not required by or under the 1995 Act to be
determined. Thus, answering the question of
jurisdiction, question has to be asked whether
the issue raised in the suit or proceeding is
required to be decided under the 1995 Act by
the Tribunal, under any provision or not. In the
event, the answer is affirmative, the bar of
jurisdiction of civil court shall operate."

12. On being confronted with the
aforesaid legal position consequent to
amendment
of
Section
83
w.e.f.
01.11.2013, the learned counsel for the
opposite parties could not show that the
legal position was otherwise.
2 All. Pahalwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
585

13. In view of the above, the order
dated 04.10.2019 is hereby quashed. The
proceedings shall now stand revived
before the Waqf Tribunal and shall be
considered and disposed of as per law with
expedition.

14. This Court appreciates the
valuable assistance provided by Sri Q. H.
Rizvi, learned Advocate in the matter.

15. The revision under Section 83(9)
of the Act, 1995 is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.

16. The Senior Registrar of this
Court at Lucknow shall communicate this
order to the Waqf Tribunal at Lucknow.
----------
(2020)02ILR A585

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1986

Pahalwan Singh & Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, Sri Arun Kumar
Singh, Sri Rahul Misra, Sri Harish Chandra
Tiwari A.C., Sri Raghubir Saran Agrawal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-Section
302/34 -Appeal against conviction.

The law is well settled that the testimony of a
witness cannot be discredited only on the ground
that the witnesses are related or interested. The only
requirement is that the testimony of such witness
should be scrutinized cautiously and carefully. (Para
35)

It would be hard to believe that the close relatives
shall leave the real culprit and shall implicate
innocent persons falsely simply because they have
enmity with the accused persons. (Para 48)

If the direct testimony of eye witnesses is reliable,
the same cannot be rejected on the basis of
hypothetical medical evidence, and the ocular
evidence, if reliable, should be preferred over
medical evidence. (Para 57)

The settled principle is that if there is some
difference of such nature between the ocular
testimony and medical evidence, ocular testimony
being direct evidence will be preferred over the
medical evidence. Both the eye-witnesses have
clearly proved the time of death as they have stated
that when the accused persons ran away after
committing the offence. (Para 59)

Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a
crime. Moreover, it takes a back seat in a case of
direct ocular account of the commission of the
offence by a particular person. In a case of direct
evidence the element of motive does not play such
an important role so as to cast any doubt on the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses even if there
be any doubt raised in this regard. Failure to prove
motive or absence of evidence on the point of
motive would not be fatal to the prosecution case
when the other reliable evidence available on record
unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. (Para
64)

In a case of direct evidence the element of
motive does not play such an important role as
to cast any doubt on the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses even if there be any
doubts raised in this regard. If the eyewitnesses
are
trustworthy,
the
motive
attributed for the commission of crime may not
be of much relevance. Failure to prove motive
or absence of evidence on the point of motive
would not be fatal to the prosecution case
when the other reliable evidence available on