The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, held that the Wakf Tribunal lacks jurisdiction and the matter must be decided by a Civil Court. The impugned order was set aside.
Impugned order is set aside; parties 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. 1706 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.9.2010.
Balbir Kaur and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Punjab Wakf Board
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present:Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J
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.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 20.9.2010. JUDGE Reema
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter or should it be decided by the Civil Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza WakfFollowed¶12
Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, Civil Appeal No. 1182 of 2006
Balbir Kaur and others
Punjab Wakf Board
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
