Final Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANA KHAN, CIVIL JUDGE-05:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS SCJ 1130/23
Mohd. Ilman
….. Plaintiff
Versus
Mohd. Iqbal & Ors.
…...Defendants
17.03.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application moved
by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of
the plaint.
2. The case of plaintiff is that he is the owner of the
property bearing no.1528, Main Road, Farash Khana, Delhi
admeasuring about 53.72 sq.yds, having purchased the same
through the registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.2022. That, he also
purchased the adjoining properties bearing no.1529 to 1538, vide
separate registered sale deed dated 13.01.2023. It is pleaded that
the adjoining properties bearing no. 1524 to 1527 belong to Delhi
Wakf Board and are managed by a Committed known as
Mumtazima Committee. That the said adjoining properties were
in dilapidated condition and had become dangerous. They
-- 1 of 6 --
2/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
eventually collapsed resulting in loss of human life and thereafter
an FIR came to be registered at PS Hauz Qazi.
3. Plaintiff states that the condition of the properties
purchased by him was also dangerous and hence, he filed
complaints to the concerned authorities for demolition of the
same. Acting on such complaints, MCD carried out partial
demolition of those properties. Plaintiff thereafter obtained a
sanctioned building plan from MCD for reconstruction of the suit
properties and pursuant thereto, commenced demolition of
remaining unsafe portions on 14.05.2023.
4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendants started
interfering in the demolition and reconstruction work and falsely
claimed that the suit properties are Wakf properties. It is alleged
that defendants threatened the plaintiff and created hindrance at
the site. That, despite complaints to the police, no effective action
was taken. In these circumstances, plaintiff filed the present suit
seeking permanent injunction, restraining defendants from
interfering in the demolition and reconstruction of the suit
properties.
5. Now, defendants have preferred the present application
contending that the plaint is liable to be rejected as this court has
no jurisdiction to try the present suit and the suit is barred by law.
6. It is the case of defendants that the suit properties are not
private properties of the plaintiff, but infact notified Wakf
-- 2 of 6 --
3/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
properties covered at Sr. no.4 of Gazette Notification dated
17.05.1979. That, the suit properties are under the control and
management of Muntazima Committee Masjid Hazrat Akhundji,
duly constituted and approved by Delhi Wakf Board. It is
contended that as per Section 85 of the Wakf Act, the jurisdiction
of civil court is barred with respect to any dispute or matter
related to Wakf. It is further contended that even if the plaintiff
claims that suit properties are not Wakf properties, this question
is a matter exclusively triable by the Wakf Tribunal. In support
of their arguments, defendants have relied upon following
authorities:-
(i) Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Shyam Singh Harike, Civil
Appeal No. 92/2019
(ii) Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari & Ors Civil Appeal no.
623/2021
7. Plaintiff has filed reply opposing the present application. It
is alleged by plaintiff that the present application is false,
frivolous and has been moved only to delay the proceedings.
Plaintiff has denied that suit properties are Wakf properties. It is
stated that plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit properties by
virtue of registered sale deeds and defendants are illegally
attempting to interfere in his rights.
8. It is further contended that the gazette notification relied
upon by the defendants is forged and fabricated and the
allegations of the defendants cannot be made the basis for
rejection of the plaint.
-- 3 of 6 --
4/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
9. Plaintiff has referred to certain documents including a
communication dated 01.08.1999 allegedly issued by the office
of Commissioner of Wakf Delhi Administration and certain RTIs
material and entries in municipal record to contend that notified
Wakf properties pertain to property no. 1509 to 1527 and not to
the suit properties no. 1528 to 1537. Plaintiff has also argued that
for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the
averments made in the plaint are to be seen and not the defence
raised by the defendants. It is thus prayed that application be
dismissed.
10. I have considered arguments addressed by both the
counsels and perused the case file carefully.
11. It is well settled that while considering an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to look only at
the averments contained in the plaint. It is equally settled that
while examining such an application, the court has to look at the
plaint meaningfully and in a holistic manner.
12. A meaningful reading of the plaint, itself shows that the
present suit is not a simple dispute of obstruction. Defendants
have specifically pleaded that the suit properties fall within Wakf
properties and are obstructing plaintiff’s demolition and
reconstruction on that basis. Thus, the objection raised goes to
the very root of the nature and character of the suit properties.
-- 4 of 6 --
5/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
13. The stand of the defendants is that the suit properties are
covered by official gazette notification dated 17.05.1979 and are
notified Wakf properties. The stand of the plaintiff is that they
are not Wakf properties and are private properties purchased by
him through registered Sale deeds. Therefore, the core
controversy that emerges is that whether the suit properties are
Wakf properties or not.
14. Once such a question arises, the same falls squarely within
the statutory framework of Section 83 of the Wakf Act. By virtue
of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, such dispute is required to be
determined by the Wakf Tribunal and in view of Section 85 of
the Wakf Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court stands barred.
Section 6 further provides that if a question arises whether any
property specified as Wakf property in the list of Wakf, is wakf
property or not, the decision of the Wakf Tribunal is final.
15. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit is merely one
for injunction cannot by itself confer jurisdiction on the civil
court when the foundational issue involved is the status of the
property as Wakf or otherwise. Plaintiff sought to rely upon
various documents to contend that suit properties are not Wakf
properties. However, such plea reinforces that there is serious
dispute regarding the status of properties as Wakf or not. The
very question which is to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal or not
by the civil court.
-- 5 of 6 --
6/6
Modh. Ilman Vs. Mohd. Iqbal
16. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered
view that the present suit is not maintainable before the civil
court as the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Wakf Tribunal. The present suit appears to be barred in view of
Section 83 and Section 85 of the Wakf Act 1995 and the same is
accordingly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Application stands disposed off.
Copy of order be given dasti.
Announced in open court
Dated 17.03.2026.
(SANA KHAN)
Civil Judge-05/Central/THC
17.03.2026
-- 6 of 6 --