ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for respondents no. 2 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. Utsav Sheth for learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the respondent no.1 through video conference. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah and Utsav Sheth waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved in the matter in narrow compass, with consent of all the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioners have earlier preferred Special Civil Application No.7374 of 2020, challenging the order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal qua the petitioners. 5. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Umesh A. Trivedi) passed the following order on 11.06.2020, in Special Civil Application No.7374 of 2020: “Heard Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners. Drawing attention to the impugned order, more particularly, the finding recorded at page 23 paragraph 20, she submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal with regard to non production of original rent receipts by the petitioners is incorrect. She has submitted that vide list of documents, which is at page 58, in this compilation, the receipts have been produced by the petitioners, of different dates. She has further submitted that for arriving at such a finding, the tribunal has neither considered or rather referred any of the documents produced nor any material is taken into consideration by the tribunal for reaching at such a finding, and therefore, she has submitted that the impugned order is required to be interfered with. At the same time, she has submitted that the said order has come to be passed on 18.02.2020 and thereafter its implementation came to be stayed till 19.03.2020 on an application given by the petitioners through their advocate vide Exh.34. Subsequent thereto, in view of the lockdown and closure of all temples and shrines etc., though the petition is filed, it could not be taken up for hearing. However, recently when lockdown is eased and with the opening of temples and shrines etc., if their tenanted property is demolished, considering it to be an encroachment, an irreparable loss would be caused to them. She has further submitted that tribunal has directed removal of the said encroachment within 15 days from the date of the order. However, recently when lockdown is eased and with the opening of temples and shrines etc., if their tenanted property is demolished, considering it to be an encroachment, an irreparable loss would be caused to them. She has further submitted that tribunal has directed removal of the said encroachment within 15 days from the date of the order. However, as on today, according to the submission of Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners, it has not been removed yet. In view thereof, NOTICE returnable on 02.07.2020. Meanwhile, the impugned order of the tribunal dated 18.02.2020 so far as it relates to the petitioners is hereby stayed.” 6. Thereafter, on raising preliminary objection by the learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah appearing for the Waqf Board, that Civil Revision Application would be maintainable against the order passed by the Waqf Tribunal, and therefore, this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.R.Udhwani), by the order dated 05.08.2020, granted permission to convert the Special Civil Application into Civil Revision Application which reads thus: “Instead of statutory revision, the petition is filed; maintainability of which is being objected to by learned Counsel Mr.Manish Shah appearing for respondent No.1. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to convert this SCA into CRA in view of the decision rendered in SCA No.18852 of 2014. The conversion is permitted. The converted CRA shall now be listed next week with all the appearances as recorded in this petition. Interim-relief to continue till then.” 7. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas appearing for the petitioners submitted that the applicants are the tenants of the respondent No.2-The Dargah Sharif Hasrat Mira Sayedali Datar Waqf Trust, having Waqf Register No. B/240/Mehsana. It was pointed out that some person filed an application, for alleged encroachment made by the petitioners and other persons in the property of the respondent No.2-Trust, before the respondent No.1-Gujarat State Waqf Board. The said application was registered as Waqf Application No.37 of 2019. The respondent No.1 thereafter, carried out panchnama by appointing Court Commissioner on 8.12.2019. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas submitted that the petitioners also preferred application Ex.22 for treating the Waqf Application No.37 of 2019 as Regular Suit as per provisions of Section 83 of the Waqf Act on 28.11.2019. The petitioners also preferred application Exh.23 for dismissal of the Waqf application for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas submitted that the petitioners also preferred application Ex.22 for treating the Waqf Application No.37 of 2019 as Regular Suit as per provisions of Section 83 of the Waqf Act on 28.11.2019. The petitioners also preferred application Exh.23 for dismissal of the Waqf application for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The petitioners preferred another application Ex.24 for dismissal of the Waqf application on the ground of the suppression of material facts. 8. The respondent No.2 filed a reply to the Waqf Application as well as the applications filed by the petitioners at Exh.22, Exh.23 and Exh.24 on 10.12.2019/07.01.2020. The respondent No.2-Waqf in the reply submitted that the petitioners Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 are not the legal tenants. It was submitted that the other petitioners are legal tenants of the Waqf Trust but the amount of rent charged by the Waqf is very less. 9. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, purported under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 for the purpose of removal of encroachment from the Waqf property. It was pointed out that the respondent No.1-Tribunal, after recording the submissions made by the respective parties, framed issues at paragraph No.10 but, in the ultimate reasons given by the Tribunal, there is no discussion with regard to application Exh.22 to Exh.24 filed by the petitioners except recording the finding in paragraph No.21 after considering the provision of Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It was submitted that though the petitioners remained present before the Tribunal and submitted their reply, the Tribunal has recorded that the petitioners did not remain present pursuant to the notice issued by the Waqf Board. It was also pointed out that in paragraph No.21, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the original respondents Nos.2, 3, 4, 7, 21, 23, 24 and 25 have made an encroachment and the other original respondents have made encroachments though they are not the tenants. It was submitted that though rent receipts are produced on record, the Tribunal has recorded that no original rent receipts are produced on record and accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioners to remove their shops and cabins including the socalled encroachment made by them within fifteen days. It was submitted that though rent receipts are produced on record, the Tribunal has recorded that no original rent receipts are produced on record and accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioners to remove their shops and cabins including the socalled encroachment made by them within fifteen days. It was therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the applications filed by the petitioners at Exh.22 to Exh.24. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Mehul Sharadkumar Shah for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Tribunal has given cogent reasons in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the impugned order and therefore, no interference is required to be made while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Learned advocate Mr. Shah relied upon the averments made in the written reply filed before the Tribunal, to point out that the petitioners are not the legal tenants of the Waqf property and therefore, while exercising the powers under Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995, the Tribunal has rightly directed them to remove their shops and encroachment over the Waqf property. 11. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, opposing the Special Civil Application which is now converted into Civil Revision Application, wherein it is averred as under: “8. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 trust is a registered waqf having Registration No.B/240/Mehsana. Respondent No.2 waqf is looking after famous dargah i.e. 'Hazrat Mira Saiyed Ali Datar Dargah' (hereinafter referred as 'Mira Datar Dargah') situated at Old Survey No.1751, New Block no.4753, Panchayat Property No.4/138 admeasuring 3708 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred as 'said property'). The said property is registered as waqf property in the Waqf Register 9. The present Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.3 to 21 (together referred as 'encroachers') have encroached upon the said waqf property just out side the main dargah, in an illegal manner without obtaining any permission. Mira Datar Dargah has special sentimental/religious value for general public and because of which people belonging to various religion come to pray there. The present Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.3 to 21 (together referred as 'encroachers') have encroached upon the said waqf property just out side the main dargah, in an illegal manner without obtaining any permission. Mira Datar Dargah has special sentimental/religious value for general public and because of which people belonging to various religion come to pray there. That because of the illegal encroachment by the encroachers, the approach road has become narrow and great difficulty is being faced by general public and it further raises the chance of stampede. That because of illegal encroachment, issues of traffic, public hygiene and public nuisance arises and considering the said grave situation, Respondent No.2 waqf has many times tried to remove said encroachment but said encroachers have taken law in their hands and they refused to remove said encroachment. 10. That considering the greater public interest, Respondent No.1 herein had issued notice dated 05.04.2012 in Form 10 under Rule 13(2) of Gujarat State Waqf Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). Further on receipt of complaint dated 25.01.2018 by Respondent no.22 herein, Respondent no.1 has again issued notice in Form 10 on 04.04.2018 in exercise of Section 54(1) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that despite receiving the said notices, present petitioners and other encroachers did not appear before the Respondent no.1 and did not availed opportunity of hearing duly provided to them and therefore, Respondent No.1 was constrained to prefer application before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 54(3) of the Act. That said action of the Respondent no.1 is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and therefore no any illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Respondent no.1 in initiating proceedings in terms of Section 54(3) of the Act. 11. It is submitted that the claim of the Petitioners that they are legally occupying the said property is specifically denied. It is submitted that out of the present Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 are not even tenants of the Respondent no.1 and their occupation is totally illegal and without any permission of Respondent No.2 or any other authority. That rest of the Petitioners have also encroached upon the public space and passage way by extending their rented premises and/or by putting Cabinets and lockers because of which great difficulty is being faced by the general public. 12. That rest of the Petitioners have also encroached upon the public space and passage way by extending their rented premises and/or by putting Cabinets and lockers because of which great difficulty is being faced by the general public. 12. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal, a panchnama was carried out in the presence of independent panchas on 08.12.2019. The claim of Petitioners that they are tenants of the Respondent no.1 waqf and they have not encroached upon any premises of the Respondent No.2 waqf is laid bare from the said Panchnama. The Panchnama reveals that encroachment have been made by the Petitioners by putting permanent shops and iron cabinets without permission or consent of Respondent No.2 waqf and therefore encroachment made by the present petitioners is clear and requires to be removed at the earliest. 13. It is submitted that Petitioners have claimed that they are lawful tenants of the Respondent no.2 waqf, however, no any rent note or rent receipt has been produced before this Hon'ble Court and therefore in absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that Petitioners are tenants. Even otherwise, alleged rent receipts sought to be produced before Ld. Tribunal only pertained to Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 6 and 10 and therefore alleged documents sought to be produced by the Petitioners itself shows that Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are not tenants and therefore present petition is required to be dismissed as Petitioners' occupation is totally illegal. It is submitted that as regards to the rest of the Petitioners, they have encroached upon the passage way and waqf property by extending their shops and putting iron cabinets and therefore, such illegal extensions are also required to be removed under Section 54 of the Act. 14. It is submitted that the claim of Petitioner that proceedings under Section 54 of the Act ought to have been undertaken as a civil suit is not correct as Section 83(6) makes it clear that Waqf Tribunal has to follow procedure prescribed notwithstanding provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and therefore when in the present case, Ld. Tribunal has followed prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, impugned order is valid in the eye of law. 15. Tribunal has followed prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, impugned order is valid in the eye of law. 15. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed after considering the reply filed by the encroachers, waqf as well as Respondent no.1 Board and therefore the allegation on non-consideration of evidence by the Ld. Tribunal is unsustainable. It is submitted that Ld. Tribunal has considered evidence including panchnama to arrive at the conclusion and therefore there is no perversity in the impugned order alleged by the Petitioners. On the contrary, the allegation that Ld. Tribunal has favoured certain encroachers in baseless as the operation part of the order makes it clear that Ld. Tribunal has directed all encroachers to remove encroachments including those who have extended their premises. It is submitted there is no any mala fide in the impugned order as alleged by the Petitioners. 16. It is submitted that Ld. Tribunal has rightly rejected applications preferred by the Petitioners at Exh.22, 23 and 24 as the grounds, of non-joinder of parties, suppression of material information and to consider proceedings as suit, were not sustainable in view of provisions of law as wella s evidence on record. It is submitted that under Section 54 of the Act Ld. Tribunal has been empowered to adjudicate to as to eviction of encroachment over waqf property. Further Section 85 of the Act specifically bars jurisdiction of any civil court over the dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf, waqf property or any other proceedings permitted under the Act and therefore when it is an undisputed fact that land under question is waqf property then insistence of the Petitioners to initiate civil proceedings is unsustainable. 17. It is submitted that Petitioners have not produced even a single evidence in the present petition which would support their claim and therefore in absence of supporting document, Petitioners have been unsuccessful in establishing their right to occupy the said property. 18. 17. It is submitted that Petitioners have not produced even a single evidence in the present petition which would support their claim and therefore in absence of supporting document, Petitioners have been unsuccessful in establishing their right to occupy the said property. 18. In view of what is stated hereinabove, present petition is required to be dismissed as (A) no illegal or impropriety in the impugned order; (B) impugned order is passed after following prescribed procedure; (B) Section 83 (6) specifically provides that Civil Procedure Code is not applicable; (C) petition in present format not maintainable as Petitioners ought to have preferred civil revision as per Section 83(9) proviso; (D) no evidence produced to show that petitioners are tenants. Even otherwise impugned order is just, legal and reasonable and therefore no interference is required at the behest of Petitioners who have been unsuccessful to prove their right to occupy said property.” 12. Having considered the rival submissions of both the sides and having gone through the materials on record, it appears that the respondent No.1-State Waqf Tribunal has passed the impugned order in Waqf Application No.37 of 2019 under Section 54(3) of the Waqf Act to remove the encroachment over the Waqf property without giving any reason with regard to the applications at Exh.22 to Exh.24 filed by the petitioners. 13. The WAQF Tribunal framed issues at paragraph No.10 as under: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondents No.2 to 28 have illegally encroached upon the Waqf property or not and whether they are illegal encroachers or not? 2. Whether respondents Nos.6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 prove that the application is required to be considered as suit? 3. Whether respondents Nos. 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 prove that the application is barred by the non-joinder and mis-jonder of parties? 4. Whether respondent Nos. 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 prove that the application is required to be dismissed for suppression of the material facts? What is the order?” 14. The Tribunal answered the issue No.1 in affirmative and issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 in negative and passed the final order by giving reasons in paragraph Nos.20 and 21. 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 22 prove that the application is required to be dismissed for suppression of the material facts? What is the order?” 14. The Tribunal answered the issue No.1 in affirmative and issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 in negative and passed the final order by giving reasons in paragraph Nos.20 and 21. On perusal of paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the impugned order, it is not possible to discern as to what weighed with the Tribunal to reject the application Exh.22, 23 and 24, as there is no discussion or any reason given by the Tribunal, except coming to the final conclusion that the application Ex.22, 23 and 24 are required to be rejected by giving findings in negative, for the issue nos.2 to 4 framed by the Tribunal. With regard to the findings given by the Tribunal for the issue No.1 also, none of the submissions made by the petitioners are taken into consideration. The Tribunal has not even recorded any finding with regard to what is stated in the panchnama nor the Tribunal has referred to the correct facts emerging from the record. The Tribunal has considered the entire Waqf Application No.37 of 2019 with regard to all the respondents together and while in the order portion, the Tribunal has bifurcated the position qua different respondents differently and held that the petitioners have encroached upon the Waqf property without considering the panchnama as well as the reply of the respondent No.2 wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner Nos.3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are the tenants of the Waqf property but the Tribunal has not considered that aspect of the matter. Moreover, the Tribunal has not considered the facts recorded in the panchnama which was carried out on 8.12.2019. Thus, it primafacie appears that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence emerging form the record as well as without giving any reason for rejecting the application Exh.22 to Exh.24. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Waqf Application No.37 of 2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal in Waqf Application No.37 of 2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal to pass a fresh denovo order in Waqf Application No.37 of 2019 after considering the evidence on record as well as after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties and pass a reasoned order after considering and adjudicating the applications at Exh.22 to Exh.24 filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. 16. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter as the matter is remanded back and the Tribunal shall consider the same without being influenced by any observations made in this order.