2021 INSC 0339                                                          REPORTABLE        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4522 OF 2021    (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.28786 of 2015) Telangana State Wakf Board & Anr.               .…Appellant(s) Versus Mohamed Muzafar          …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T   A.S. Bopanna,J. 1. The   appellant   No.1   is   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State Wakf Board, while the appellant No.2 is the Mutawalli of the   registered   Wakf   institution   which   is   known   as Graveyard   Mir   Rahmat   Ali   Shah.   The   said   Wakf institution   is   stated   to   have   been   registered   under Muntakhab bearing No. 998 dated 24.02.1953 and later Page 1 of 28 entered in the book of endowment showing an extent of 666   sq.   yards.   The   Muntakhab   was   amended   by   the Wakf   Board   in   its   resolution   dated   21.04.1988   to   the extent   of   correcting   the   land   of   the   Wakf   institution   as 998.66   sq.   yards   and   the   same   was   published   in   the gazette   notification   dated   29.12.1988.   The   wakf institution/graveyard   is   situated   near   Tek   Masjid, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The   father   of   appellant   No.2,   Late   Mir   Dawood   Ali was the Mutawalli appointed by the Wakf Board, whose name   is   recorded   in   the   gazette   referred   to   above.   The appellant averred that during the lifetime of the father of appellant   No.2,   the   father   of   the   respondent,   namely, Late   M.A   Qayyum   had   obtained   on   rent   the   premises bearing   Municipal   No.   5­7­420/2   measuring   90.16   sq. yards belonging to the Wakf institution. The father of the respondent   was   running   a   firewood   stall   which   he  later converted   into   a   hotel   and   has   been   running   the   hotel business in the name and style “Hotel Najran”. Page 2 of 28 3. The case of the appellant was that the father of the respondent   was   paying   rent   in   respect   of   the   property and   was   being   enhanced   from   time   to   time.   The respondent,   after   he   became   a   major   continued   the tenancy of his father in respect of the said premises and the   monthly   rent   at   the   time   of   filing   the   suit   was Rs.1,500/­   excluding   electrical   and   water   charges.   The respondent is stated to have suceeded to the tenancy in the   year   1995  and  the  rent  was  being   paid  to   the  Wakf Board   since   the   institution   at   that   point   was   under direct  management  of  the Board in  view of  the death  of the   original   Mutawalli   i.e.,   the   father   of   appellant   No.2. Subsequent thereto the appellant No.2, as the successor was   appointed   as   the   Mutawalli   in   place   of   his   father vide   the   proceedings   dated   04.07.2005   which   was published   in   the   gazette   on   04.08.2005.   The   appellant No.2 intimated this fact to all the tenants of the property belonging  to the Wakf institution through a letter  dated 14.11.2005,   whereafter   the   rent   was   being   paid   to   him directly. In  respect  of the premises in  the occupation  of Page 3 of 28 respondent the rent was not being paid regularly, which accumulated   to   Rs.24,500/­.   Despite   repeated   requests the respondent had not paid the arrears from the month of   November   2005   for   a   period   of   7   months   which amounted to Rs.10,500/­. The respondent therefore was due to pay the total amount which was due and unpaid.  4. The   appellant   further   averred   that   while   the   Wakf institution   was   under   the   direct   management   of   the Wakf   Board,   the   respondent   had   encroached   upon   40 sq. yards site of the graveyard on the western side of the tenanted   premises,   constructed   road   thereon   and started   running   a   firewood   stall.   The   appellant   No.2 noticed   the   same   when   he   assumed   charge   on 04.07.2005.   Though   the   appellant   No.2   requested   the respondent   to   pay   damages   for   the   use   and   the   illegal occupation   and   vacate   both   the   properties,   namely   the tenanted   as   well   as   the   encroached   portion,   the respondent   did   not   vacate.   In   that   background,   the appellant   No.2   got   issued   the   legal   notice   dated 23.05.2006   terminating   the   tenancy   of   the   tenanted Page 4 of 28 portion   with   effect   from   01.07.2006   and   demanded   to remove the encroachment. The respondent on receipt of the   notice   made   payment   of   Rs.4,500/­   as   part   of   the arrears of rent through a money order and also a sum of Rs.4,500/­   was   paid   directly   to   the   appellant   No.2 towards   the   rent   for   the   months   of   August,   September and   October,   2005.   The   respondent   however   got   issued reply   notice   dated   12.06.2006   wherein   he   denied   that the tenanted portion and the alleged encroached portion referred   to   was   Wakf   property   and   that   his   father   had taken   it   on   rent.   Further,   all   claims   made   by   the appellants were also denied. 5. In   the   above   backdrop,   the   appellants   were constrained   to   file   a   suit   bearing   O.S.   No.126/2006 before   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   Wakf   Tribunal, Hyderabad   seeking   eviction   of   the   respondent   from   the property belonging to the Wakf institution. The tenanted portion referred to above was delineated as Schedule ‘A’ in the plaint while the encroached portion was shown as Schedule   ‘B’.   The   respondent   who   was   arrayed   as Page 5 of 28 defendant in the suit had appeared and filed his written statement   wherein   inter   alia   he   had   contended   that   the suit property is not a Wakf property and that the exhibit filed   by   the   appellants   dated   30.10.1994   pertaining   to the   graveyard   is   of   an   extent   of   667.8   sq.yards.   It   was further   contended   that   the   gazette   notification   clearly established   that   this   graveyard   is   not   having   any   non­ agricultural   lands   such   as   mulgies   and   houses   etc.   He further claimed that the property bearing No. 5­7­420/2 stood in the name of his father. The gazette notification dated   29.12.1988   mentioning   the   extent   as   998.66 sq.yards   was   disputed   and   contended   that   the   same does   not   exist.   Further,   the   case   put   forth   by   the appellants herein as plaintiff in the suit was disputed  in toto. 6. The   Wakf   tribunal   on   taking   note   of   the   rival contentions   had   framed   the   following   issues   for consideration: ­ “1.   Whether   the   land   covered   by   H. No.5­7­420/2,   situated   at   Nampally Page 6 of 28 Hyderabad   is   part   of   notified   Wakf Graveyard? 2. Whether   there   is   a   relationship   of land   lord   and   tenant   between   the parties. 3. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to evict the defendant as prayed for? 4. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to arrears   of   rent,   mesne   profits   as   prayed for? 5. To what relief?” The   parties   accordingly   tendered   evidence   before the Wakf tribunal so as to discharge the burden cast on them.  7. The   appellant   No.2   examined   himself   as   PW.1. Though,   witness   Mr.   Mohd.   Yousuf   Qureshi   was examined   as   PW.2,   he   was   not   tendered   for   cross­ examination   and   therefore   his   chief­examination   was eschewed.   The   appellants   also   relied   upon   the documents   which   were   marked   as   Exhibits   A1   to   A24. The   respondent   examined   himself   as   DW.1   and   also examined   a   witness   Mr.   Mohd.   Abdul   Aziz   as   DW2   and relied upon the documents at Exhibits B­1 to B­40. The Page 7 of 28 Wakf   tribunal   after   taking   note   of   the   rival   contentions and   the   evidence   tendered,   held   the   issues   in   favour   of the   appellants   and   decreed   the   suit   holding   the   suit schedule   properties   to   be   the   property   belonging   to   the Wakf   institution   and   directed   the   respondent   to   vacate the suit schedule properties. The judgment to that effect was rendered by the Wakf tribunal on 12.10.2012. 8. The   respondent   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the said   judgment,   preferred   a   Revision   Petition   under Section   83   of   the   Wakf   Act   before   the   High   Court   of Judicature   at   Hyderabad   in   Civil   Revision   Petition No.1331/2013.   The   High   Court   while   adverting   to   the rival   contentions   has   allowed   the   Revision   Petition   and set aside the judgment passed by the Wakf tribunal. The High Court passed the said order on 02.06.2014. It has referred   to   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Ramesh   Gobindram     vs.   Sugra   Humayun   Mirza Wakf   (2010)   8   SCC   726;   has   accordingly   held   that   the suit was not maintainable before the Wakf tribunal and has allowed the parties to avail their remedy as per law. Page 8 of 28 The   appellants,   therefore,   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by the said judgment are before this Court in this appeal. 9.   We   have   heard   Ms   Akriti   Chaubey,   learned counsel   for   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Raavi   Venkata Yogesh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the   appeal   papers   as   also   the   written   submissions submitted by the respective learned advocates. 10. As   noted   from   the   fact   situation   narrated   above, the   appellant   had   contended   that   the   suit   schedule properties are Wakf properties and had claimed that the respondent   is   a   tenant   in   respect   of   Schedule   ‘A’ property   and   that   he   had   encroached   the   Schedule   ‘B’ property   which   also   belongs   to   Wakf   institution.   The respondent   had   contended   that   the   suit   properties   are not   Wakf   properties.   From   the   issues   framed   by   the Wakf tribunal, it is noticed that the consideration which was required at the outset was to conclude whether the land covered by H No.5­7­420/2 situated at Namapally, Hyderabad   is   a   part   of   the   notified   Wakf   Graveyard. Similarly, the status of Schedule ‘B’ property which was Page 9 of 28 alleged to  be  encroached by  the  respondent  was  also  to be determined, if it was also part of Wakf property. It is in that regard, the tribunal having noted the contentions has   analysed   the   same   with   reference   to   the   evidence. What   was   highlighted   by   the   respondent   is   that   the gazette   notification   indicated  only   668   sq.  yards  and   as such the suit schedule properties do not form part of the same. In that regard, though the appellants relied on the notification dated 29.12.1988 to contend that the extent of   the   land   belonging   to   the   Wakf   institution   is   998.66 sq. yards the respondent disputed the existence of such notification.  11. The Wakf tribunal, apart from referring to the said documents had also taken note of the fact that an earlier suit in O.S. No. 186 of 1982 had been instituted by the appellant   No.1   herein   against   the   father   of   the respondent.   The   judgment   passed   therein   was   marked as   Exhibit   A13   in   the   present   suit.   The   tribunal   having noted   the   same   and   the   nature   of   the   contentions   put forth   had   in   that   regard   taken   into   consideration   the Page 10 of 28 written   statement   filed   by   the   father   as   at   Exhibit   A15, as also the panchnama dated 1.09.2005 at Exhibit A17. In that light, the Wakf tribunal had noted that when the respondent herein had claimed to have succeeded to the property   of   his   father   and   in   respect   of   same   property when the father had taken a particular stand in the suit filed   against   him,   the   respondent   would   be   estopped from putting forth any other contention, keeping in view, the   provision   contained   in   Section   116   of   the   Evidence Act.  12. In   addition,   the   tribunal   had   also   taken   into consideration the fact that the brother of the respondent had filed a writ petition bearing No. W.P. 26338 of 2007 challenging   the   gazette   dated   29.12.1988   wherein   the extent   of   the   property   belonging   to   the   Wakf   institution is   shown   as   998.66   sq.   yards.   The   contents   of   the gazette was extracted and noted by the tribunal, wherein it   was   indicated   that   the   amendment   to   Muntakhab No.998   in   file   No.2195/2/1350   fasli   was   notified   in Andhra Pradesh gazette dated 29.12.1988. Thus, as per Page 11 of 28 the   amended   Muntakhab   the   open   land   measuring 998.66   sq.   yards   and   the   premises   bearing   MCH numbers 5­7­429, 5­7­420/1, 5­7­420/2 and 5­7­420/3 are   Wakf   properties.   Therefore,   based   on   the   said conclusion and the finding rendered on other aspects by the   tribunal,   the   tribunal   had   at   the   outset   arrived   at the   conclusion   that   the   property   in   question   is   Wakf property.   In   that   regard   to   disbelieve   the   documents relied   on   by   the   respondent   at   Exhibits   B1   to   B37 namely   the   receipts   and   the   claim   that   the   slum certificate   is   issued,   the   tribunal   has   noted   the corrections   made   therein   which   is   visible   to   the   naked eye and as such did not accept the same. 13.   Insofar   as   the   Schedule   ‘B’   property,   the   tribunal had   taken   into   consideration   the   notice   at   Exhibit   A7 which was issued by the appellants. In order to arrive at the   conclusion   that   the   said   property   also   forms   a   part of   the   Wakf   property   which   is   the   Graveyard,   the tribunal   had   referred   to   Exhibit   A16,   i.e.,   plan   which was made in the year 1985 by the Wakf Board. From the Page 12 of 28 said plan, the tribunal had noticed that the Schedule ‘A’ and   ‘B’   properties   form   a   part   of   the   Wakf   properties which   was   also   depicted   in   the   photographs   which   was marked   as   Exhibit   A22.   It   is   in   that   light,   the   Wakf tribunal   had   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the   relief prayed for in the suit is liable to be granted and the suit was decreed in favour of the appellants herein.  14.   The High Court on the other hand, before holding that the suit ought not to have been instituted before the Wakf  tribunal   in   view  of   the   judgment   rendered   by   this Court in the case of  Ramesh Gobindram  (supra) has in fact attempted reappreciation of the evidence which was tendered   before   the   tribunal.   Reference   is   made   to   the Entry   at   Serial   No.1698   and   the   indication   of   the   Wakf institution known as Graveyard Rehmat Ali Sahab, area noted   as   667.8   sq.   yards   at   Cross   road,   Masjid Nampally. It was concluded that the same does not tally. The   gazette   notification   dated   29.12.1988   was mentioned, wherein the extent is indicated as 998.66 sq. yards   but   the   same   was   disbelieved.   At   the   outset   it   is Page 13 of 28 necessary to indicate that the consideration by the High Court   ought   not   to   have   been   in   the   nature   of reappreciating   the   evidence   which   is   permissible   in   an appeal. In a Revision Petition the scope of consideration is   limited   and   the   judgment/order   under   challenge   can be   interfered   only   in   the   event   of   there   being   perversity seen   on   the   face   of   the   order   and   if   the   conclusion reached cannot be acceptable to any reasonable person. In the instant case, on the factual aspects as noted, the tribunal   had   referred   to   the   evidence   including   the manner   in   which   the   extent   of   the   Wakf   property   was rectified and indicated as 998.66 sq. yards and also had taken   into   consideration   the   first   round   of   litigation between   the   State   Wakf   Board   and   the   father   of   the respondent wherein the conclusion reached was that the property   in   question   is   Wakf   property.   Therefore,   such finding  of fact which  had been recorded by  the tribunal based   on   evidence   available   on   record   could   not   have been lightly interfered with by the High Court.  Page 14 of 28 15. In   that   regard   it   would   be   appropriate   to   refer   to the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Kiran   Devi   versus   Bihar State   Sunni   Wakf   Board   and   Others     2021   SCC Online SC 280 which was authored by one of us (Justice Hemant   Gupta)   wherein   the   scope   of   jurisdiction   to   be exercised under Section 83 of Wakf Act is crystallised as follows:­ “20.     Therefore,   when   a   petition   is   filed against   an   order   of   the   Wakf   Tribunal before   the   High   Court,   the   High   Court exercises   the   jurisdiction   under   Article 227   of   the   Constitution   of   India. Therefore,   it   is   wholly   immaterial   that the  petition  was titled  as a writ  petition. It   may   be   noticed   that   in   certain   High Courts,   petition   under   Article   227   is titled   as   writ   petition,   in   certain   other High   Courts   as   revision   petition   and   in certain   others   as   a   miscellaneous petition.   However,   keeping   in   view   the nature   of   the   order   passed,   more particularly in the light of proviso to sub­ section   (9)   of   Section   83   of   the   Act,   the High   Court   exercised   jurisdiction   only under   the   Act.   The   jurisdiction   of   the High   Court  is   restricted   to   only   examine the   correctness,   legality   or   propriety   of the   findings   recorded   by   the   Wakf Tribunal.   The   High   Court   in   exercise   of the   jurisdiction   conferred   under   proviso Page 15 of 28 to sub­section (9) of Section 83 of the Act does not act as the appellate court.” 16. Be   that   as   it   may,   having   noticed   the   manner   of consideration made by the High Court with regard to the merit   not   being   justified,   it   would   also   be   necessary   for us to consider as to whether the proceedings before the Wakf   tribunal   would   be   sustainable   in   the   teeth   of   the observations   made   by   the   High   Court   with   reference   to the   decision   in   Ramesh   Gobindram   (supra)   which resulted in the High Court setting aside the order passed by   the   tribunal.   We   have   carefully   perused   the   said decision.   The   consideration   made   therein   was   in   the background of the provisions as contained in Sections 6, 7, 83 and 85 of the Wakf Act 1995. No doubt it is a case where the question arose as to whether suit for eviction from   the   Wakf   properties   could   be   instituted   before   the Wakf tribunal. However, what is necessary to be noted is that, the question for consideration has been delineated in paragraph 2 of the order which clearly indicates that what   was   required   to   be   answered   therein   was   as   to Page 16 of 28 whether the suit for eviction of tenants in respect of the items   of   property   which   are   admittedly   Wakf   properties could   be   filed   before   the   Wakf   tribunal.   After   having taken   into   consideration   Sections   6   and   7   of   the   Act, this Court was of the view that the tribunal would have the jurisdiction to decide such of those disputes arising thereunder   and   in   respect   of   eviction   of   tenants   from what is admittedly a Wakf property should be filed in the Civil   Court   as   jurisdiction   under   Section   9   of   the   Civil Procedure   Code   is   expansive.   It   is   accordingly   held, since   what   is   to   be   decided   by   the   tribunal   are   the disputes which arise under  Section 6 and 7, the bar  as contemplated under Section 85 to file a suit in the Civil Court does not apply. The said decision was rendered in a circumstance where the property was admittedly Wakf property,   whereas   in   the   instant   case   it   is   not   an admitted case since the respondent had taken a specific contention  that  the  properties  in  question  are not  Wakf properties. Page 17 of 28 17. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   has however,   referred   to   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the case   of   Faseela   M.   vs.   Munnerul   Islam   Madrasa Committee and Another   (2014)16 SCC 38 to point out that   in   a   similar   consideration   made   by   another   Bench of this Court relating to the jurisdiction of Wakf tribunal, this   Court   has   held   that   even   in   a   case   where   it   is disputed   by   the   defendant   that   the   property   is   not   a Wakf  property  and  if  it  is  a  case  seeking  eviction   of  the tenant,   the   suit   is   required   to   be   filed   before   the   civil court   and   jurisdiction   of   the   Wakf   tribunal   cannot   be invoked. 18.   The learned counsel for the appellants has on the other hand drawn our attention to the other decisions of this   Court   on   the   same   issue.   In   the   case   of   Board   of Wakf,   West   Bengal   and   Another   vs   Anis   Fatma Begum and Another  (2010) 14 SCC 588 and in the case of   Haryana   Wakf   Board   versus   Mahesh   Kumar ( 2014) 16 SCC 45 this Court has held that the question Page 18 of 28 as to whether a property is Wakf property or otherwise is exclusively   determinable   by   the   Wakf   tribunal   after enactment   of   the   Wakf   Act.   The   decision   in   the   case   of Punjab   Wakf   Board   vs   Sham   Singh   Harike   (2019)   4 SCC   698  is  also  referred  by  the  learned  counsel  for   the appellant   to   contend   that   in   order   to   determine   as   to whether   there   is   a   bar   on   the   jurisdiction   to   the   civil court in relation to the provision contained in Wakf Act, one is to ask the question as to whether the issue raised in   the   suit   or   proceeding   concerned   is   required   to   be decided under the Wakf Act, 1995 by the tribunal under any provision or not and if the answer to that question is in the affirmative the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court would operate. 19. Having   noted   the   various   decisions   rendered   by this   Court   which   are   all   by   a   quorum   consisting   of   two judges   it   would   also   be   apposite   for   us   to   take   note   of the decision in the case of   Kiran  Devi   (supra) rendered by a quorum of three Hon’ble Judges. The said case also related to a suit instituted by the tenant in respect of the Page 19 of 28 suit   premises   seeking   declaration   to   that   effect   and   to continue   in   the   suit   premises   as   tenant   on   payment   of monthly rent. In the said case, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff before the competent civil court but the   defendants,   namely   the   Wakf   Board   had   contended that   the   issue   is   to   be   decided   by   Wakf   tribunal.   They filed   application   and   sought   transfer   of   the   suit   to   the Wakf tribunal which was accordingly ordered by the civil court   and   was   also   upheld   by   the   High   Court   in Revision. Subsequently, having succeed on merits before the Wakf tribunal, had failed in the writ petition wherein the claim of plaintiff was upheld. The Wakf Board at that point   raised   the   contention   that   the   tribunal   did   not have the jurisdiction in the appeal filed before this Court by placing reliance on  Ramesh Gobindram  (supra). This Court   in   the   facts   arising   therein   had   held   that   the judgment   passed   by   the   Wakf   tribunal   in   the circumstance   cannot   be   held   as   without   jurisdiction. The said case is one more circumstance to indicate that the facts and circumstance in each case will have to be Page 20 of 28 taken   note   in   the   background   of   the   legal   frame   work contained in the Wakf Act to determine jurisdiction.  20.     In  that  light,  in  the  present   facts  it  is  to  be  noted that the appellants at the first instance had got issued a notice   dated   23.05.2006   to   the   respondent   terminating the  tenancy  relating  to  the suit ‘A’ schedule property. A further   notice   was   issued   in   respect   of   the   suit   ‘B’ schedule property requiring the respondent to vacate the encroached portion. The respondent, by his reply notice dated   12.06.2006   denied   that   the   property   in   question was   a   Wakf   property.   In   the   said   circumstance,   the instant   case   cannot   be   deemed   as   an   admitted   case   of the   property   being   Wakf   property   as   in   the   reply   notice itself the respondent had disputed the same. It is in that circumstance   the   appellants   being   of   the   impression that the first issue to be established is that the property in   question   is   the   Wakf   property,   which   could   be considered by the tribunal, had filed the suit before the Wakf   tribunal.   The   respondent   having   appeared,   filed Page 21 of 28 the   written   statement   and   inter   alia   had   contended   as follows: ­ “3.         This   defendant   submits   that   with regard   to   the   averments   made   in   para   1 of the plaint and the documents annexed clearly   shows   that   the   suit   property   is not a Wakf Property. The Gazette filed by the   Plaintiffs   dated   30.10.1984   pertains to the so called graveyard is of an extent of   667.8   sq.   yards.   The   said   Gazette notification   clearly   establish   that   this Graveyard   is   not   having   any   non agricultural   land   such   as   mulgees   and houses etc. on the other hand as evident from   the   Municipal   records,   electricity and water works department record, that the   premises   bearing   No.5­7­420/2 stands   in   the   name   of   the   father   of   this defendant.   This   defendant   further submits   that   there   is   no   such   Gazette notification   dated   21.12.1999   and   the extent mentioned 998.66 sq. yards is not supported by any documentary evidence. The   2   gazette   notifications   filed   by   the Plaintiffs   are   self­contradictory.   The   so called   grave   yard   is   endowed   with   any property more over  there will not be any attached   properties   for   the   burial grounds   as   there   will   be   no developmental   activities   or   maintenance like   the   other   wakf   institutions   namely the   dargah   masjid   or   ashurkhana   as much   the   averments   made   in   Para   1   of the   plaint   is   wholly   contrary   to   the Gazette   itself.   The   plaintiffs   are   put   to strict proof of the same.”    Page 22 of 28 21. Apart   from   the   contention   put   forth   by   the respondent what is also to be taken note is that the High Court has made detailed reference to the contention put forth   by   the   respondent   regarding   the   gazette notification   relating   to   the   property   as   claimed   by   the appellants   and   the   discrepancy   as   pointed   out   by   the respondent   by   claiming   that   the   extent   mentioned   is 667.8 sq. yards and not 998.66 sq. yards as contended by   the   appellants.   The   inclusion   of   the   property   in   the gazette   dated   29.12.1988   which   was   disputed   by   the respondent   was   also   taken   into   consideration.   In   that light, through the discussion and conclusion reached by the High Court in paras 12 and 13 (b) of the order while adverting   to   the   contention   of   encroachment   of   40   sq. yards which was described in Schedule ‘B’ to the suit it has   indicated   that   there   is   no   evidence   of   required standard   as   to   how   the   extent   of   Wakf   property   had increased from 667.8 sq. yards to 998.66 sq. yards and by mere recital in the gazette notification   under Exhibit A2 and the resurvey   report,   the   Muntakhab   and   the Page 23 of 28 amended   Muntakhab   would   not   be   sufficient   to   decide the   suit   since   the   tenant   had   denied   the   case   of   the plaintiffs   that   the   ‘B’   schedule   property   is   a   Wakf property.   The   High   Court   has   further   held   that   the aspect as to whether the ‘B’ schedule property is a Wakf property   or   not   cannot   be   decided   without   affording   an opportunity to the tenant to question the correctness of the   contents   of   the   gazette   notification   by   following   the procedure established by law.  22. The   very   observations   made   by   the   High   Court,   in our   view   would   indicate   that   the   suit   was   maintainable before the Wakf tribunal in the facts and circumstances of   the   instant   case.   This   is   so   for   the   reason   that   the High   Court   notices   that   the   grievance   put   forth   by   the respondent   to   contend   that   the   property   is   not   Wakf property   is   by   disputing   the   extent   as   shown   in   the gazette   notification   as   998.66   sq.   yards   since   according to   the   respondent   the   actual   extent   is   667.8   sq.   yards and  therefore the  land in  occupation  by  the respondent is   beyond   that   extent.   Therefore,   in   fact   the   contention Page 24 of 28 put   forth   by   the   tenant   is   with   reference   to   the   gazette notification and to contend that the extent of property in occupation   is   not   within   the   extent   as   shown   in   the gazette notification or otherwise. The dispute in effect is to   question   the   extent   of   land   beyond   667.8   sq.   yards being included to be the property of the Wakf Institution which   is   included   in   the   list   and   as   such   whether   that extent   in   the   list   is   Wakf   property.   That   will   be   a question   which   falls   under   Section   7   of   the   Waqf   Act. The   very   observation   of   the   High   Court   indicating   that an   opportunity   is   to   be   afforded   to   the   respondent   to question   the   correctness   of   the   contents   of   the   gazette notification   by   following   the   procedure   established   by law is to allow the respondent to invoke the provisions of Section   6   and   7   of   the   Wakf   Act   and   seek   appropriate orders.  23. When   that   is   the   position,   it   will   have   to   be   noted that   in   the   instant   case,   though   the   legal   remedy   had not   been   availed   by   the   respondent   within   the   time frame as provided under  Section  6 of the  Act, the  issue Page 25 of 28 had   fallen   for   consideration   before   the  Wakf  tribunal   in view of the defence put forth by the respondent and the Wakf   tribunal   had   rendered   its   finding   on   that   aspect based on the evidence placed before it. Since the gazette notification   had   been   questioned   to   indicate   that   the property   which   is   in   the   occupation   of   the   respondent was   not   a   part   of   the   notified   Wakf   property,   the   same applied both to the suit Schedule ‘A’ as well as Schedule ‘B’   properties.   In   such   circumstance,   the   Wakf   tribunal had   the   jurisdiction   to   determine   that   question   which had   been   framed   as   an   issue   in   this   suit.     Further   as already  noted, on the facts evolving in the instant case, the  tribunal  had relied upon  the  evidence  available and had   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   the   property   in question   is   Wakf   property   and   had   accordingly   decreed the suit. 24.   In   that   view,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the judgment dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Wakf tribunal in O.S. No. 126/2006 was rendered in a suit which was maintainable   before   the   Wakf   tribunal   and   it   had   the Page 26 of 28 jurisdiction   to   do   so.   Insofar   as   the   nature   of   the consideration   made,   we   notice   that   the   evidence available   on   record   has   been   analysed   in   its   correct perspective   and   an   appropriate   conclusion   has   been reached   by   the   Wakf   tribunal.   On   the   other   hand,   as already   noted   the   High   Court   has   not   adhered   to   the well­established   norm   of   limited   scope   available   in   a Revision Petition. Further the conclusion reached by the High   Court   to   hold   that   the   suit   was   not   maintainable before the tribunal is also not justified. The order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order: i) The   order   dated   02.06.2014   passed   by   the   High Court   of   Judicature   at   Hyderabad   in   Civil   Revision Petition No.1331/2013 is set aside. ii) The   judgment   dated   12.10.2012   passed   by   the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal Hyderabad in O.S. No. 126/2006 is restored. Page 27 of 28 iii) The   respondent   is   granted   three   months’   time   to vacate   and   handover   vacant   possession   of   the   suit schedule   ‘A’   and   ‘B’   properties   subject   to   payment   of rent, including arrears.  iv)     The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. v)    Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.    ………….…………….J. (HEMANT GUPTA)           ………….…………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 03, 2021 Page 28 of 28