The High Court held that following the Supreme Court precedent in Ramesh Gobindram, the Civil Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and the Wakf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. The impugned order setting aside this view was set aside.
Impugned order set aside; parties left at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1676 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.9.2010.
Sanjeev Kumar Gulati and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Wakf Board and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present:Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Bhagwan Advocate for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J
Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh
Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil
Appeal No. 1182 of 2006 , the matter has to be decided by the Civil Court and the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, the impugned order is set aside.
The parties are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court with regard to redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.
20.9.2010. Reema
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the matter should be decided by the Civil Court or the Wakf Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza WakfExplained¶12
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006
Sanjeev Kumar Gulati and others
Haryana Wakf Board and another
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
