Plea styled as writ petition under Article 226 will not bar High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227: Supreme Court

A petition titled as writ petition under Article 226 does not bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday ( Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board ).

. The nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial, a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta held.

. "The petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court," the Court said.

. The judgment came in an appeal against a Patna High Court decision whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed, holding that the tenant in the premises in question was representing Karta of a joint Hindu family and that he was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights in favour of Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board.

. Thus as a consequence, it was held that induction of the appellant as a tenant by the Wakf Board was illegal. Accordingly, a direction was issued to dispossess the appellant from the suit premises and to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.

. The appellant had argued that the order of the Wakf Tribunal could not be challenged by way of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as only a revision in terms of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 could be preferred.

It was argued that the High Court could not have reappreciated facts in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the High Court had illegally set aside findings of fact recorded by the Wakf Tribunal.

. However, the three-judge bench after examining the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act stated that the Section confers power on the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination.

. The top court held that “the petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

“ The jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court. The nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial, ” Supreme Court held.

. The top court stated that when a petition is filed against an order of the Wakf Tribunal before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

. “It is wholly immaterial that the petition was titled as a writ petition. It may be noticed that in certain High Courts, petition under Article 227 is titled as writ petition, in certain other High Courts as revision petition and in certain others as a miscellaneous petition," ruled the top court.

. Supreme Court stated that in the light of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act, the High Court exercised jurisdiction only under the Act.

"The jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to only examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings recorded by the Wakf Tribunal. The High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act does not act as the appellate court,” ruled Supreme Court.

. The Court, however, allowed the appeal on other grounds.

. [Read judgment]

Plea styled as writ petition under Article 226 will not bar High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227: Supreme Court

Debayan Roy

Related Stories