The Orissa High Court holds that writ petitions under Article 226/227 challenging Waqf Tribunal orders are maintainable; the nomenclature of a petition (writ or revision) is immaterial as per Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Devi. The judgment upholds existing precedent, aligning with the procedure set out in the Waqf Act and clarifies registration and roster practices within the High Court, reinforcing binding authority for all subordinate courts in the State.
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 (within Orissa High Court jurisdiction); follows Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court in Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (2021) 15 SCC 15 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law / Waqf Law / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 is maintainable to challenge an order of the Waqf Tribunal in light of Sec.83(9) Waqf Act |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, held that the nomenclature of challenging final orders of the Waqf Tribunal (as writ petition or revision) is immaterial. The High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 226/227 despite the provision for revision in Sec.83(9) Waqf Act. Such petitions are maintainable. The judgment also clarified procedural aspects for registration and assignment within the Orissa High Court: such matters should be registered as CMP and heard by a Single Bench as per local High Court rules. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged a Waqf Tribunal order declaring certain land as waqf property and directing correction of records. Petitioners claimed the property was communal land of villagers. Respondents objected to maintainability, arguing only revision under Section 83(9) Waqf Act was possible. Court addressed if writ petition maintainable in present form. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Benches of the Orissa High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar procedural dilemmas regarding Waqf Tribunal orders |
| Follows | Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board (2021) 15 SCC 15 (SC) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that all decisions of Waqf Tribunals are subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, irrespective of the proceedings’ nomenclature.
- The mere labeling of a petition as a “writ petition” or “revision” does not affect maintainability; substance prevails over form.
- As per Orissa High Court Rules, such matters, though maintainable, should be registered as CMP (Civil Miscellaneous Petition) and placed before the appropriate Single Bench.
- Reference to Supreme Court’s Kiran Devi and L. Chandra Kumar decisions makes this binding precedent within Orissa.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the argument that, as per Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, only a revision was maintainable against Waqf Tribunal decisions, not a writ petition.
- The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi, which held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is preserved and not curtailed by statute, per L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
- The Court emphasized that the nomenclature (“writ” or “revision”) is immaterial; the exercise of power under Article 227 is available regardless.
- The Court examined local High Court procedural rules (Rule 5, Chapter XV, Part II, and Rule 1(a), 1(b)) which dictate how such petitions should be registered and to which Bench assigned: CMP, to be placed before a Single Bench.
- The petitions were thus held maintainable, with directions for proper registration and roster allocation according to the High Court’s procedural norms.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The writ petition challenging the Tribunal order is maintainable under Articles 226/227 because Sec.83(9) Waqf Act does not exclude the constitutional powers of the High Court.
- Relief sought is justified irrespective of the nomenclature as established by judgments of the Supreme Court.
- Relied specifically on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Devi.
Respondents (including Waqf Board and plaintiff)
- Preliminary objection: only a revision under Section 83(9) Waqf Act can be filed; writ in present form is not maintainable.
- Asserted that writ petition is procedurally wrong due to prescribed statutory remedy.
Factual Background
Both petitions arose from a Waqf Tribunal judgment which declared certain land as waqf property and directed rectification of land records in favor of the plaintiff (Sayed Mansur Saheb Peer). Petitioners, local villagers, asserted communal rights over the land and challenged the Tribunal’s order. Respondents objected to the writ’s maintainability, arguing procedural bar under Sec.83(9) Waqf Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 83(9), Waqf Act, 1995: No appeal lies from Tribunal orders, but High Court may, on its own or on application, call up and review Tribunal determinations via revision.
- The proviso confirms judicial supervisory role of the High Court, consistent with constitutional powers under Articles 226/227 which cannot be excluded (per L. Chandra Kumar).
- The Orissa High Court Rules specify procedural and roster management for such petitions (CMPs to Single Bench).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There were no dissenting or separate concurring opinions; the judgment is signed by both members of the Division Bench.
Procedural Innovations
- Clear direction that, within the Orissa High Court, similar challenges to Waqf Tribunal orders should be registered as CMP and listed before a Single Bench in accordance with the High Court Rules, even if initially filed as writ petitions.
- This procedural clarification reinforces docket and roster uniformity for future cases of this nature.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows the Supreme Court’s binding decision in Kiran Devi and clarifies its application locally.
Citations
- Kiran Devi v. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 15
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: 1997 SCC (L&S) 577
- Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal, (1983) 2 SCC 422
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749