Writ petitions under Articles 226/227 challenging Waqf Tribunal orders are maintainable; the nomenclature of the petition is immaterial. The Orissa High Court follows and applies the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, confirming the binding nature of High Court’s supervisory powers and clarifying procedural aspects for such petitions within Orissa’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/9790/2015 of RABINDRANATH KAR Vs SAYED MANSUR SAHEB PEER |
| CNR | ODHC010030692015 |
| Date of Registration | 19-05-2015 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the Orissa High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (2021) |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Constitutional (Writ Jurisdiction; Waqf Act Section 83(9)) |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ petitions under Articles 226/227 are maintainable against Waqf Tribunal orders |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s pronouncements on scope of Articles 226/227; interpretation of S.83(9) Waqf Act; procedural rules of Orissa High Court Rules 1948 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs claimed Waqf property status on land used as Peerstan, Kabarstan, and Idgha, which was notified in 1978 but recorded wrongly during settlement. Waqf Tribunal declared the suit land as Waqf property and directed correction of records. Petitioners (general public) challenged before the High Court, arguing communal rights and suppression of facts. Maintainability was objected to by respondents citing S.83(9) Waqf Act. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All benches and subordinate courts within the Orissa High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering maintainability of writs against Waqf Tribunal orders under similar circumstances |
| Follows | Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (2021) 15 SCC 15 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts’ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 to review Waqf Tribunal decisions is undiminished by Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act; remedy by way of writ/revision is maintainable.
- Nomenclature of the petition (writ, revision, CMP, etc.) is irrelevant; substance of the relief sought determines maintainability.
- In Orissa, such petitions must be registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMP) and heard by a Single Bench according to High Court Rules, regardless of the title of the original petition.
- Registry is directed to correct the category/nomenclature for such petitions in accordance with proper procedure.
- Lawyers can confidently file or defend such challenges as maintainable, relying on this ruling and Supreme Court precedent.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The preliminary objection was that only a ‘revision’ lies to the High Court against Waqf Tribunal orders per Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, not a writ petition.
- The Court extensively quoted and followed Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (2021) 15 SCC 15, where the Supreme Court clarified that the power of judicial review exercised by High Courts under Articles 226/227 is preserved and unaffected by the Waqf Act.
- The substance, not nomenclature, controls jurisdiction: a petition titled as ‘writ’ or otherwise can still be treated as one under Article 227, as clarified further in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and other authorities.
- The Court highlighted that as per Orissa High Court Rules, petitions arising out of suits/appeals must be categorized as CMP (Civil Miscellaneous Petition) and heard by a Single Bench for procedural regularity.
- Directed the Registry to re-register the present writs as CMP and place them before the assigned Bench, confirming maintainability.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Challenged the Waqf Tribunal order on the ground that the land is communal property of villagers, not exclusively Waqf property.
- Argued that the Tribunal judgment was obtained by the plaintiff through suppression of material facts.
- Submitted that writ petitions are maintainable under Articles 226/227, and Section 83(9) is not a bar.
Respondents (Plaintiff & Waqf Board):
- Objected to maintainability, arguing only a revision lies under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, not a writ.
- Sought dismissal of writ petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over land in Mouza-Mustafapur, Bhadrak, claimed as Peerstan, Kabarstan, and Idgha by local Muslims and notified as Waqf property in 1978. During a later settlement, it was recorded under “Sarbasadharan khata,” allegedly as a clerical error. On learning of this, Sayed Mansur Saheb Peer and others filed for declaration and consequential relief before the Waqf Tribunal, which ruled in their favor. Local villagers challenged this order before the Orissa High Court, asserting communal rights, and the respondents questioned the maintainability of such writ petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act states no appeal lies from Waqf Tribunal decisions, but the High Court can, suo motu or on application, call for records to examine correctness, legality, or propriety and pass appropriate orders.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court interpretation that Section 83(9) does not exclude the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 and that the remedy provided is supervisory, not appellate.
- The Orissa High Court Rules 1948, Chapter XV, Part II, Rule 5, and Rules 1(a)/(b) mandate that applications arising out of suits/appeals be registered as CMP and heard by a Single Judge.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; both judges concurred and signed the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed that future petitions challenging Waqf Tribunal orders be categorized and registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMP) and be heard before the appropriate Single Bench, in conformity with Orissa High Court Rules.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Devi, affirming settled law and clarifying its application for the Orissa High Court.
Citations
- Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 15
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
- Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal, (1983) 2 SCC 422
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749
Key Paragraphs: Paras 17–26, 90–91 (as quoted from SCC authorities in the instant judgment)