Holding

The phrase “any person interested therein” in Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 means a person interested in the wakf, not merely interested in the property, and therefore the one‑year limitation does not bar the appellants’ application.

Summary

Abdul Rais and others applied to the Madhya Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal for a declaration that land listed as wakf in the Official Gazette was actually their private property. The Wakf Board opposed, arguing the appellants had no title and that the application was barred by the one‑year limitation under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954. The Tribunal allowed the application; the Board filed a revision under the proviso to Section 83(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995, and the High Court held the application time‑barred. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the meaning of “any person interested therein” in Section 6(1) and held that it refers to a person interested in the wakf itself, not a third‑party claimant of title, so the limitation does not apply to the appellants. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the one‑year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954 applies to a claim by a third‑party asserting title over land listed as wakf.
Interpretation of the phrase “any person interested therein” in Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act, 1954.

Legislation cited

Wakf Act, 1954s. 5, s. 6
Wakf Act, 1995s. 83(a)

Subjects

Wakf ActSection 6 limitationInterpretation of ‘therein’Wakf propertyCivil suit limitationState Wakf BoardDeclaration of titleRemand

Judgment

ABDUL RAIS AND ORS. A
v.
MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD AND ORS.

JANUARY 3, 2005

[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, J.I.] B

Wakf Act, 1954-Sections 6 and 5-Dispute regarding wakfs-Limitation
to file suits-Word "therein" appearing in sub-section(/) of S.6-Meaning
and construction of-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideratio11 in C
view of the earlier decisio11s of this Court on this aspect, the factual position
and reliefs sought for in the instant suit-Wakf Act, 1995-Section 83(a),
proviso.
.
Appellants filed application before the State Wakf Tribunal seeking
declaration that the suit property specified in the Official Gazette (wakf D
list) was not a wakf property, but exclusively belonged to them. State Wakf
Board resisted the claim contending that the applicants had no title and
that in any event the application was barred by time, being not filed within
one year from the date of publication in the Official Gazette as
contemplated under S.6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, which was in force at the
relevant time. The Tribunal allowed the application over-ruling the E
objections raised by the Wakf Board. Wakf Board filed revision application
in terms of proviso to Section 83(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995 which in the
meanwhile had been enacted. High Court held that the application filed
by the Appellants before the State Wakf Tribunal was barred by time.

In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that the High Court erred
F
, in holding that the application made by Appellants before the Tribunal
was barred by time, as S.6 had no application to the facts of the present
case.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1.1. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
Wakf Act, 1954 requires that a civil suit shall be filed within <:me year from
the date of the publication of the notification issued under sub-section (2)
of Section 5. But the operative words in sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
H
,... SUPREME COURT REPORTS j2005J I S.C.R .

A Act are "the Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested '¥
therein". The requirement to file a civil suit within one year of the
notification under the Act as mentioned in the first proviso to Section 6(1)
of the Act is in connection with any dispute between the Wakf Board on
the one hand and the mutawalli of the wakf on the other or any person
interested therein. The expression "therein" means "interested" in the
B wakf as distinct from interested in the property i.e. a third party.
14-F, H; 5-A-BJ

Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat@ Gram Sabha, 120001 2 SCC
121; Sayyed Ali'" A.P. Wakf Board, 119981 2 SCC 642; Board of Muslim
c Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors., 1197912 SCC 468 and Siraj-ul-
Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf U.P., AIR (1959) SC 198, relied
on.

1.2. The effect of the relief sought for in the suit and the law laid
down by this Court have to be kept in view. Further none was present on
D behalf of the Wakf Board at the time of hearing of the revision application
by the High Court. In the aforesaid background it is appropriate to remit
the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration. 15-G-H; 6-AI
~

Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat@ Gram Sabha, 120001 2 SCC
121; Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and Ors., 119791· 2
E SCC 468 and Siraj-u/-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf U.P., AIR
(1959) SC 198, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4. 7.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh
F High Court at Indore in C.R. No. 954 of 2000.
r
S.K. Gambhir, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha and Anil
K. Chopra for the Appellants.

B.S. Banthia and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted.
·h

Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendere~ by a learned
Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, holding that
H the petition filed by 1he appellants before the Madhya Pradesh State Wakf
/\13DlJL R/\IS v. M.P. W/\KF BOARD [P/\SAYAT . .I.] 3
Tribunal, Bhopal (in short the 'Tribunal') was barred by time. A
Factual position sans unnecessary details is as follows:

On 27.12.1996, appellants filed an application before the Tribunal
seeking a declaration that the suit property specified in Official Gazette (Wakf
List) dated 13.9.1985 is in fact not a wakf property, but the said property B
exclusively belongs to the appellants. In essence, they sought for a declaration
that they were 'Bhumiswami' of the suit property which consisted of
agricultural lands. Hence, the declaration is bad in law and not binding. The
Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board (in short 'the Wakf Bom·d') resisted the claim
made, taking the stand that the applicants had no title. In any event, the
application was hopelessly barred by time. It was their stand that the suit was C
not filed within one year from the date of publication in the Official Gazette
as contemplated under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act')
which was in force at the relevant time. Subsequently, the Wakf Act, 1995
has been enacted. The Tribunal allowed the application over-ruling the
objections raised by the Wakf Board and held that the application was within D
time and the applicants had proved their title on facts and consequentially
were entitled to the declaration as sought for. It was, therefore, held that the
declaration made in the Official Gazette to the effect that the suit property
was wakf property is bad and the applicants were the 'Bhumiswami' of the
suit land.
E
Questioning correctness of the order the Wakf Board filed a revision in
terms of proviso to Section 83(a) of the Wakf Act, 1995. At the time of
hearing revision application none was present on behalf of the Wakf Board.
Learned Single Judge held that limitation to file a suit to seek declaration as
to whether a particular property was Wakf's property or not is one year and F
it begins from the date of publication of the list ofwakf's properties. Reference
was made to Section 6 of the Act in this context. The said judgment is the
subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the High Court has fallen into grave error by holding that the application G
made by the appellants before the Tribunal was barred by time, as Section 6
had no application to the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge
found as a matter of fact that no notice was given to the appellants before the
promulgation of the notification. As soon as the appellants came to know of
the notification, they filed an application before the Tribunal. In any event,
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12005] I S.C.R.

A when the application was based on title, Section 6 had no application. ::y
In response, learned counsel for the Wakf Board supported the judgment
of the High Court and submitted that the position in law is very clear and
Section 6 of the Act has clear application.

B Chapter II of the Act refers to the preliminary survey of Wakfs and
Section 5 deals with the publication of the list of Wakfs. Section 5 reads as
follows:

"5. Publication of list of wakfs.- (I) On receipt of a report under sub-
section (3) of Section 4, the State Government shall forward a copy
c of the same to the Board.

(2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-
section (I) and publish, in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs in the
State, or as the case may be, the part of the State, whether in existence
at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter
D to which the report relates, and containing such particulars as may be
prescribed."

Section 6 deals with disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section (I) of Section
6 reads as follows:

E "6. Disputes regarding wakfs. - (I) If any question arises whether a
particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs
published under sub-section (2) of Section 5 is wakf property or not,
whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf,
the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested
therein may institute a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction
F for the decision of the question and the decision of the civil court in
respect of such matter shall be find :"

No doubt as contended by the Wakf Board, the first proviso to sub-
section (I) of Section 6 as extracted below requires that a civil suit shall be
G filed within one year from the date of the publication of the notification
issued under sub-section (2) of Section 5.

The first proviso to sub-section ( 1) of Section 6 reads as follows:

"Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the civil court
after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list
H
ABDUL RAIS v. M.P. WAKF BOARD [PASA YAT. J.] 5
of wakfs under sub-section (2) of Section 5:" A
The operative words in sub-section (I) of Section 6 of the Act are "the
Board or the Mutawalli of the Wakf or any person interested therein". As
observed by this Court in Punjab Wakf Board v. Gram Panchayat @ Gram
Sabha, (2000] 2 SCC 121 the requirement to file a civil suit within one year
of the notification under the Act as mentioned in the first proviso to Section B
6 (I) of the Act is in connection with any dispute between the Wakf Board
on the one hand and the mutawalli of the wakf or, the other or any person
interested therein. The expression "therein" was interpreted by this Court in
Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board., (1998] 2 SCC 642. It was held that the
expression "therein" means "interested" in the wakf ~.s distinct from interested C
in the property i.e. a third party. In fact, in paragraph 33 of Board of Muslim
Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Rad.ha Kishan and Ors., (1979] 2 SCC 468, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court observed as follows:

"33. The answer to these questions must tum on the true meaning and
construction of the word 'therein' in the expression 'any person D
interested therein' appearing in sub-section (I) of Section 6. In order
to understand the meaning of the word 'therein' in our view, it is
necessary to refer to the preceding words 'the Board or the Mutawalli
of the wakf. The word 'therein' must necessarily refer to the 'wakf
which immediately precedes it. It cannot refer to the 'wakf property'.
Sub-section ( 1) of Section 6 enumerates the persons who can file E
suits and also the questions in respect of which such suits can be
filed. In enumerating the persons who are empowered to file suits
under this provision, only the Board, the mutawalli of the wakf, and
'any person interested therein' thereby necessarily meaning any person
interested in the wakf, are listed. It should be borne in mind that the F
Act deals with wa:;fs, its institutions and its properties. It would,
therefore, be logical and reasonable to infer that its provisions empower
only those who are interested in the wakfs, to institute suits."

For coming to the aforesaid conclusion this Court relied on an earlier
decision in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Wakf UP., AIR G
(1959) SC 198.

The position in law as indicated by this Court in the aforesaid cases
does not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. The effect of
the relief sought for in the suit and the effect of the decisions of this Court
referred to above were required to be kept in view. As noted above, none was H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12005] I S.C.R.

A present on behalf of the Wakf Board at the time of hearing of the revision
application by the High Court.

In the aforesaid background, we think it appropriate to remit the matter
to the High Court for a fresh consideration keeping in view the decisions in
Punjab Wakf Board's case (supra), Radha Kishan 's ca~e (supra) and Siraj-
B ul-Khan 's case (supra) and the factual position as indicated and the reliefs
sought for in the suit. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

C B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.