Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28636 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 54 of 2018 Revisionist :- Anjuman Islahul Muslimeen Thru. Secretary Opposite Party :- U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chairman And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Najam Zafar,Rafat Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Farhan Habib,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Manish Kumar Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Najam Zafar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 as well as Shri Farhan Habib learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. Having considered the dispute which is between the parties. There is no need to hear the respondent no.2 as it was merely a nodal agency who was appointed for raising construction on behalf of the several Waqfs in light of the policy decision of the State and is not contesting party. 3. The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Lucknow in Waqf Case No.1 of 2016 (Waqf Qadeem Qabristan Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others) whereby the reference preferred by the respondent no.3 was allowed and the revisionist was restrained from creating any interference in the possession or raise any construction in respect of plot bearing No.1722/2, measuring 3 biswa, situate in gram Ujariaon, Tahsil and District Lucknow. 4. Shri Zafar, learned counsel for the revisionist has attacked the said order primarily on two grounds:- (i) It is urged that in terms of the Rules framed under the Waqf Act the orders have to be passed by a corum of three members. It is urged that in the instant case, the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 has been passed by two members, thus the order is corum non-judice and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone; (ii) The learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the dispute in question was in respect of the Plot No.1722/2 which is part of Waqf No.1969 which is recorded as a graveyard. The Waqf for the revisionist bearing No.255 comprising of Plots No.1719/2, 1720 and 1721 are also recorded as graveyard. 5. It is urged that a dispute was raised at the behest of the respondent no.3 that there were attempts made by the revisionist to encroach the land which belonged to the respondent no.3 and in the aforesaid backdrop, the Tribunal had noticed that in order to resolve the controversy, it was necessary to get plots demarcated primarily Plot No.1722/2 which belonged to the respondent no.3 and Plot No.1721 which was part of the Waqf belonging to the revisionist. 6. It is further submitted that upon the inspection it was found that there was no encroachment nor there was any attempt on behalf of the revisionist to encroach upon the land of the respondent no.3 and in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have passed an order restraining the revisionist. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that once it was admitted position, each of the parties were in their own rights settled over thereto separate plots, hence there was no occasion to pass an order of restrain and being aggrieved, the revisionist has approached this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the decisions in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust Vs. Magnum Developers and others, AIR 2016 SC 381, Civil Revision No.57 of 2022, Nauman Ali Vs. Mazahar Hasan & others decided on3.1.2023, Civil Revision No.3 of 2017, Naushad Raza and others Vs. Waqf Prabandhak Committee of Waqf Qabristan and others decided on 21.02.2017, Civil Revision No.41 of 2017, Mohd. Refeeque @ Chhote Miya & others, decided on 17.4.2017, Civil Revision No.358 of 2016 Subhan Raza Khan @ Subhani Miyan Vs. Mannan Raza Khan & another, decided on 24.11.2016, Civil Revision No.151 of 2018, Waqf Kabristan and Eidgah No.3 and another Vs. Abbas Ali and another decided on 30.07.2018. 8. It is quite unfortunate that the decisions which have been cited by the counsel for the revisionist, not one have any applicability in the instant case. The aforesaid decisions are discarded for two reasons and thus cannot be relied upon. The decision of the Apex Court Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust (supra) relates to a case where State had not framed the rules. However, in the instant case, once the rules have been framed in 2017, the decision of the Apex Court cannot come to the aid of the revisionist. The other judgments have been passed by Co-ordinate Benches of the Court which are interim in nature and none of them take note of the rules of 2017. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, the decisions which have been cited have no role to play and are accordingly not applicable. 9. Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has drawn the attention of the Court to the Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal Rules, 2017 which has been placed on record as Annexure CA-1 with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 and it has been stated that in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the said Rules of 2017, it is clearly provided that the Chairman of the Tribunal will constitute three benches comprising of two members each and the bench would be competent to decide a case. It is only in case of disagreement between the two members that the matter will be decided by the Full Tribunal comprising of three members with the majority decision. 10. It is urged that on the date when the order was passed, the Rules had been enforced and it is admitted case that the decision rendered by the Tribunal dated 24.04.2018 was delivered by a corum of two members, hence it was in consonance with the Rules and cannot be said that the order is bad for want of corum or jurisdiction. 11. Shri Dwivedi further submits that the Tribunal came to the conclusion looking into the case of the revisionist that they have claimed their land which was separate to the land of respondent no.3 and once there was a clear case between the parties that the respondent no.3 claimed only in respect of Plot No.1722/2 which is part of Waqf No.1969, to which it was stated that the revisionist did not have any right thereon in light of this fact if the direction has been issued restraining the revisionist from interfering in the possession or raising any construction over the land which admittedly belonged to the respondent no.3, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision and for the said reason, the revision deserves to be dismissed. 12. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 13. Apparently, there is no dispute to the fact that as far as the revisionist is concerned, their graveyard is part of Waqf No.255 comprising of Plots No.1719/2, 1720 and 1721. It is also not disputed that as far as the respondent no.3 is concerned, it is Waqf No.1969 comprises of Plot No.1722/2. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the respective rights in respect of their separate Waqf and the plots. 14. It was also contended by the revisionist that they do not intend to raise any construction on the land of the respondent no.3. Once this is the admitted position and the revisionist does not intend to raise any construction or interfere in the possession in respect of Plot No.1722/2 which belongs to the respondent no.3. Consequently, in light of the admitted position, this Court does not find that there is any order which is adverse to the revisionist. Moreover, the relief of injunction is preventive and in the given facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in granting an injunction. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the revision which is accordingly dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 ank Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench