JUDGMENT 1. - Present petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.2000 passed by the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. 6/99. 2. The case of the petitioner is that plot of land measuring 2835.88 sq. ft. known as 'Imambada', near Nakki Jheel, Mt. Abu is a wakf property. A proposal was prepared in the year 1994 for giving this Imambara on 99 years lease and the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to this effect entered into an agreement for leasing out this plot, at the terms of which were to be decided by the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf. 3. Term of lease was reduced from 99 years to 33 years but by order dated 28.7.98 in accordance with the provision of the Wakf Act the State Government has directed not to give the plot in dispute on lease for only 33 years but has sanctioned lease for only 3 years at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per year. 4. The lease was prepared for three years but same was not registered. A letter was written to the Registrar, Abu Road, Sirohi for requesting to register the document, but it was not registered as to concern officer were not present in person before Registrar and actual physical possession was not Handed over to non-petitioner No. 1 and 2. 5. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a suit before the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal and sought the relief for issuing a direction to the defendant Board of Muslim Wakf for getting the lease deed of the property in question executed for a period of 33 years and if it is not possible then it may be executed for three years and the lease property may be given in physical possession to the respondent No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 and 2 also sought relief for giving direction to the defendant Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to refund Rs. 14 lacs with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and sought the relief of cost of the litigation also. 6. The Wakf Tribunal vide its order dated 25.5.2000 directed the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to execute lease deed for three years and to handover the possession to the lesee and to deduct Rs. 1,50,000/- for three years lease amount and further directed the defendant Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to return Rs. 6. The Wakf Tribunal vide its order dated 25.5.2000 directed the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to execute lease deed for three years and to handover the possession to the lesee and to deduct Rs. 1,50,000/- for three years lease amount and further directed the defendant Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to return Rs. 14 lacs to respondent No. 1 and 2.The order dated 25.5.2000 has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a special act and over ride the provisions of other act in the similar matters. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.M. Ali has referred the provisions of Section 6(1), Section 7, Section 1(4) and submits that by reading these provisions it appears that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only to decide the question whether a particular property specified as Wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf and to hear the appeals of the persons aggrieved against the orders of Wakf Board, in connection with removal of mutavaties or the management of wakfs. Except provisions of Section 6 and 7 which are regarding declaration of the property as to whether wakf or not and whether Shia wakf or Sunni wakf there are only appellate powers with the Tribunal against the orders of the Board. 8. Mr. S.M. All further submits that the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal is limited and Wakf Tribunals have jurisdiction only to hear those matters which are under the Wakf Act. To make it more precise he referred Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 9. After referring the provisions of Section 85; Section 6(1) and Section 7, Mr. S.M. Ali submits that the Wakf Tribunal is only having jurisdiction to decide the question whether a particular property is a wakf property or not or whether that is Sunni Wakf or Shiya Wakf and such matter can be heard by the Tribunal. No other civil matter, of what so ever nature, can be heard and decided by the Tribunal. For all such matters there are civil courts which provide for taking evidence, the cross examination of the witnesses, the admissibility of the documents and so many other niceties of law are required for the decision of the civil matters. 10. No other civil matter, of what so ever nature, can be heard and decided by the Tribunal. For all such matters there are civil courts which provide for taking evidence, the cross examination of the witnesses, the admissibility of the documents and so many other niceties of law are required for the decision of the civil matters. 10. The matter before the Tribunal are decided on affidavits. Neither the witnesses are examined nor witnesses are cross-examined and in case of dispute of facts it is not possible to decide the civil matters without cross examination of the witnesses, the decision on the admissibility of the documents, the presumptions raised under the evidence act and so many other points, is not possible under the proceedings of tribunal where the matters are decided only on affidavits and this is the only reason that the scope and jurisdiction of the wakf tribunals are circumscribed. 11. Mr. S.M. Ali assailed the order on the point with regard to the enforcement of the illegal agreement. The agreement forbidden by law. He referred Section 23 of the Contract Act and Section 56 of the Wakf Act. 12. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1969 Rajasthan 155 (Inderjit Singh v. Sunder Singh) , ILR (1953) III Rajasthan 45 (Baiju Lal v. Matadeen) , AIR 1937 Oudh 150 (Jagannath v. Baijnath) , AIR 1969 Calcutta 578 (Calcutta National Bank Ltd. v. Rangaroon Tea Co. Ltd. & Ors.) 13. By referring these judgments he submits that ratio decided by aforesaid judgments is that no decree could have been passed by Wakf Tribunal and even a civil court either for the consideration of agreement forbidden by law or for the enforcement of such agreement and in any case the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide such matters. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 Mr. M.M. Ranjan submits that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner in the first time before this Hon'ble Court is not tenable. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 Mr. M.M. Ranjan submits that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner in the first time before this Hon'ble Court is not tenable. It is also given out by learned counsel for the respondents that writ petition No. 1143/1997 was filed by the respondent before this High Court at Jodhpur and an objection to the alternative remedy was raised by the Wakf Board petitioner and alternative remedy suggested by the Board was the Rajasthan Wakf Tribunal constituted under the Wakf Act and the objections of the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated 28.7.97 wherein this High Court has held that "it would be appropriate for the petitioners to raise the grievance before the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1955 and seek an appropriate relief by filing a separate application for stay. If the petitioners file a suit under Section 83 of-the Act or any other provision or the rules framed thereunder within a period of two weeks from today alongwith an application for stay, then status quo ante shall be maintained for three weeks thereafter and the petitioners shall secure an order from the Wakf Tribunal within that period." With these observations, the petition was disposed of. 15. By referring this judgment rendered in writ petition No. 1143/1997 earlier filed by respondent No. 1 and 2, Mr. Ranjan submits that the order passed by this Court is binding on the petitioner. He cannot raise the plea that the order passed by the High Court is null and void and without jurisdiction. He further submits that since the Tribunal has passed the adverse order against the petitioner, therefore, he is challenging the jurisdiction which is not permissible under the law. 16. Mr. Ranjan further submits that the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the Wakf Tribunal, No issue was framed. No such plea was raised before the Tribunal and the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time before this Court in view of Section 21 CPC. To this effect he referred the judgment reported in AIR 1993 SC 2094 (RSD v. Shriballabh) and AIR 1962 SC 199 . With regard to the scope of the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 Mr. To this effect he referred the judgment reported in AIR 1993 SC 2094 (RSD v. Shriballabh) and AIR 1962 SC 199 . With regard to the scope of the Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 Mr. Ranjan submits that the Tribunal has been constituted for determination of any disputed questions or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property. He referred sub-section 8 of Section 83 of the Wakf Act and submits that with this sub-section Wakf Act gave a jurisdiction to the Tribunal as a Civil Court, meaning thereby the provisions of CPC are applicable. He also referred Section 85 of the Wakf Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil suit with regard to the Wakf property. 17. Mr. Ranjan further submits that the amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- was deposited as security and not as consideration when the agreement itself was not executed then there is no question of any void agreement. The respondent was not claiming any enforcement of any void agreement, but was asking for refund of security amount. In case the agreement was not enforceable. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act gives power to the court to award the compensation instead of enforcement of a contract. 18. He placed reliance in the case of Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh reported in 1998(3) SCC 471 and also referred Section 65 of Indian Contract Act. 19. The respondent has paid court fees and has also filed a counter claim and prays for interest. Mr. Ranjan submits that the amount has been illegally withheld by the petitioner and the Tribunal rejected the interest only on the ground that the parties are Mohammedan. This plea was never raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal secondly a company cannot be said to be any person of any cast/creed or religion. It is merely a juristic person. To this effect Mr. Ranjan assailed the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has lost site of the fact that the petitioner has enjoyed the amount deposited by the respondent for no fault of his, if he had invested this amount. He would have earned much more money and hence the respondent is entitled for damages. The damages can be awarded by way of interest. In support of his contention he referred the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1031 . 20. He would have earned much more money and hence the respondent is entitled for damages. The damages can be awarded by way of interest. In support of his contention he referred the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1031 . 20. Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material available on the record, perused the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal dated 25.5.2000 and carefully examined the judgment referred by the respective parties along with the relevant provisions of Wakf Act. 21. The judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the judgment passed by the Wakf Tribunal is without jurisdiction. To resolve the present controversy. I carefully examined the relevant provisions of Wakf Act. 22. Section 6 of the Wakf Act 1995 deals with the disputes regarding wakfs. Sub-section 1 speaks that if any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni Wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final. 23. Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of wakfs. 24. By bare perusal of the provisions of Section 6 reveals that any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision. In, relation to any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs published after the commencement of this Act, shall include also every person who, though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under section 4. 25. Section 7 provides the power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs. 25. Section 7 provides the power of Tribunal to determine disputes regarding wakfs. Section 7 is herewith reproduced as under : (1) If, after the commencement of this Act, any question arises, whether a particular property specified as wakf property in a list of wakfs is wakf property or not, or whether a wakf specified in such list is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf, or any person interested therein, may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in relation to such property, for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final Provided (a) in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published after the commencement of this Act no such application shall be entertained after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs; and (b) in the case of the list of wakfs relating to any part of the State and published at any time within a period of one year immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, such an application may be entertained by Tribunal within the period of one year from such commencement; Provided further that where any such question has been heard and finally decided by civil court in a suit instituted before such commencement, the Tribunal shall not re-open such question. (2) Except where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of sub-section (5), no proceeding under this section in respect of any wakf shall be stayed by any court, tribunal or other authority by reason only of the pendency of any suit, application or appeal or other proceeding arising out of any such suit, application, appeal or other proceeding. (3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be made a party to any application under sub-section (1). (4) The list of wakfs and where any such list is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1), the list as so modified, shall be final. (3) The Chief Executive Officer shall not be made a party to any application under sub-section (1). (4) The list of wakfs and where any such list is modified in pursuance of a decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (1), the list as so modified, shall be final. (5) The Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine any matter which is the subject-matter of any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced in a civil court under sub-section (1) of section 6, before the commencement of this Act or which is the subject-matter of any appeal from the decree passed before such commencement in any such suit or proceeding or of any application for revision or review arising out of such suit, proceeding or appeal, as the case may be. 26. As per Section 7 any person interested therein may apply to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. 27. Section 33 deals with the powers of inspection by Chief Executive Officer or persons authorised by him. Section 35 is - with regard to the conditional attachment by Tribunal. 28. Section 51 is with relation to alienation of wakf property without sanction of Board to be void and Section 52 deals with the recovery of wakf property transferred in contravention of section 51. 29. Section 54 is with relation to removal of encroachment from wakf property. Section 64 also referred by the petitioner is with regard to removal of mutawalli. Section 67 is with relation to supervision and supersession of committee of management. 30. Section 69 deals with the power of Board to frame scheme for administration of wakf. Section 73 is with relation to power of Chief Executive Officer to direct banks or other person to make payments. 31. Having carefully gone through these provisions of Section 33, 35, 51, 52, 54, 64, 67, 69 and 73 which are preferred by the petitioner are not relevant sections for the purposes to decide the present controversy. 32. I also carefully examined the Section 83 under which the Tribunal has been constituted. In sub-section 8 of Section 83 it is expressly mentioned that the Execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by the civil court to which such decision is sent for execution in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 33. Section 85 of the Wakf Act 1995 bars of jurisdiction of civil courts. In sub-section 8 of Section 83 it is expressly mentioned that the Execution of any decision of the Tribunal shall be made by the civil court to which such decision is sent for execution in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 33. Section 85 of the Wakf Act 1995 bars of jurisdiction of civil courts. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of any disputes, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. 34. I also perused Section 21 of the Special Relief Act and Section 23, 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act. With relation to the jurisdiction of Tribunal which is main contention of the petitioner raised in the writ petition, I carefully examined the judgment reported in RLR 2000(3) 330 (Syed Inamul Haq Shah v. State of Raj. & Anr.) wherein this Court has held that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie' would mean that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable or sustainable which means no suit or other legal proceedings shall be carried on, or continued to be entertained. Thus, bar would apply to pending proceedings also. On coming into force of Act of 1995, civil court had no jurisdiction to pass any order in the suit except that of return of it for presentation to proper court. 35. The ratio decided in the case of Syed Inamul Haq Shah v. State of Raj. & Anr . (Supra) has been followed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bano Jahan Begum v. District Judge Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors. dated 21.11.2002 wherein this Court has held that after enactment of Section 85 of 1995 Act, the Appellate Authority under section 9 of 1964 Act in relation to dispute, question or other matters relating to wakf or wakf property, is the Wakf Tribunal headed by the District Judge of 10 years standing. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the case on merit in accordance with law. 36. Upon careful examination of the provisions of Section 83 and 85 it reveals that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the case on merit in accordance with law. 36. Upon careful examination of the provisions of Section 83 and 85 it reveals that no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in. any civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal. 37. I am not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction. The Tribunal is certainly having jurisdiction to decide the question relating to wakf property. 38. On the factual aspect also, since the respondent No. 1 and 2 had deposited the amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- and even if no valid agreement is entered between the parties, the respondent No. 1 and 2 certainly have right to ask for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,50,000/-. 39. The Tribunal has not committed any wrong while directing the petitioner to execute the lease agreement for a period of 3 years and hand over the possession to respondent No. 1 and 2 and also directed to deduct Rs. 1,50,000/- as a lease money for a period of 3 years and further directed the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf to return Rs. 14 lacs balance which has been deposited by respondent No. 1 and 2. 40. Upon careful examination of the judgment dated 25.5.2000 passed by the Wakf Tribunal, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and no interference whatsoever is required by this Court. 41. So far as the counter claim as claimed by respondent No. 1 and 2 for interest is concerned, I do not deem it proper to grant any relief in the counter claim as.the Tribunal has rightly held not to grant the interest on the ground that parties are Mohammedan, meaning thereby the counter claim of the respondent No. 1 and 2 is herewith rejected. 42. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.Consequently, the stay order granted by this Court on 21.11.2000 stands vacated.Writ petition dismissed. *******