KASAMSHA RAMJANISHA DIWAN Vs. GUJARAT STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 284 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 18, 2016

                                                        NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.284 OF 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 4639 of 2015)



KASAMSHA RAMJANISHA DIWAN                                          APPELLANT


                                VERSUS

GUJARAT STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANR.                                RESPONDENTS



                              J U D G M E N T

      KURIAN,J.


                 Leave granted
2.          The issues pertain to certain disputes with regard to  the  Bala
Pir Trust.   In  the  nature  of  the  order  we  propose  to  pass,  it  is
unnecessary to go into the factual matrix of the case.  The  learned  Single
Judge though was of the view that the disputes should be worked  out  before
the Civil Court, yet remanded the matter to the Gujarat  State  Wakf  Board.
The Division Bench of the High Court as  per  the  impugned  judgment  dated
01.05.2014, allowed the appeal modifying that part of the  order  passed  by
the learned Single Judge and vacated the order on remand.
3.          We find  from  the  order  dated  03.03.2006  in  Special  Civil
Application No. 14540 of 2004 and connected matters that the learned  Single
Judge had passed an interim order.  The operative portion and to the  extent
relevant the order dated

                                    - 2 -
03.03.2006 reads as follows :

      “2.....It appears that there is inter se dispute amongst the  Trustees
of the Trust.  The decision of the WAKF Board  is  under  challenge  in  the
main Special Civil Application and this Court has by  interim  order  stayed
the decision of the WAKF Board.   It  further  appears  that  the  Trust  is
having property, which includes the income of donation, which may  be  given
by the devotees who visit Balapir Dargah.   With  a  view  to  see  that  on
account of the  inter  se  dispute  amongst  the  Trustees  and  during  the
pendency of this petition, the property of the Trust is taken care  and  not
adversely affected, it would be just and proper if  the  District  Collector
directs the local Mamlatdar to apply seal to the donation box  of  the  said
Dargah.
      3.Further, at the interval of every month, the said donation  box  may
be opened by the Mamltardar in presence of  the  Trustees  and  the  amount,
which may be received, shall be credited in a separate bank account  of  the
Trust.  Meeting of the Trust shall also be held under  the  Chairmanship  of
the Mamlatdar and Trustees and after  the  resolutions  are  passed  by  the
Trustees for incurring of expenses for maintenance of the properties of  the
Trust, the amount which is being received as donation from the donation  box
shall be utilised for making payment  through  account  payee  cheque.   For
such purpose, there may be the association of  Mamlatdar  with  atleast  two
Trustees, one may be from the group of the petitioner and  the  another  may
be respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
      4. The Collector shall authorise the local  Mamlatdar  for  compliance
of the aforesaid order and the aforesaid arrangement  shall  continue  until
final disposal of the petition.
5. It is made clear that such arrangement shall be only for maintenance  and
preservation of the property and  for  incurring  routine  and  day  to  day
expenses but none of the  trustees  shall  take  decision  for  disposal  of
immovable property of the Trust until final disposal of the petition.”


4.          We permit the appellant to work  out  the  remedy,  as  per  the
liberty granted to  the  appellant  in  the  impugned  judgment,  before  an
appropriate forum and initiate the process within a period of one month.
                                    - 3 -

5.          The appellant may also seek appropriate interim relief from  the
authority concerned.
6.          However, in the interest of both the  parties,  we  are  of  the
view that the interim order which we have  extracted  above  shall  continue
for a period of eight weeks so as to enable the appellant to  work  out  the
remedies.  Ordered accordingly.
7.          We  make  it  clear  that  we  have  not  considered  the  rival
contentions of the parties and we have not  expressed  any  opinion  on  the
merits of the case.  It will be open to the parties to raise  all  available
contentions before the forum concerned.   It  is  for  that  forum  to  pass
appropriate and required orders including  any order on interim relief.
8.    The appeal is disposed of as above with no order as to costs.


                                                      ....................J.
                                                            [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                      ....................J.
                                                     [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

      NEW DELHI;
      JANUARY 18, 2016