Patna High Court
Shubham KumarversusThe Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct to dismiss the title suit as the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements of Section 54 and the suit was premature.
Summary
Shubham Kumar, a tenant of the Prayag Lal family, claimed tenancy over land partially dedicated as waqf property. The Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board filed Eviction Application No. 13 of 2020 against him, and he responded by filing Title Suit No. 02 of 2024 before the Waqf Tribunal seeking a declaration of title based on adverse possession. The Tribunal dismissed the suit at the admission stage, holding that the pending eviction proceeding would be delayed by the suit. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined Section 54 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, which requires a show‑cause notice and hearing before an eviction order can be made. The Court found that the appellant had not availed this remedy and that the title suit was premature, affirming the Tribunal’s dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the interlocutory application disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a title suit can be entertained while an eviction application under Section 54 of the Unified Waqf Act is pending.
- Whether the appellant is an encroacher or a lawful tenant for purposes of the waqf property.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the title suit at the admission stage.
Legislation cited
- Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 — s. 54
Subjects
- Waqf
- Eviction
- Encroachment
- Title suit
- Adverse possession
- Section 54
- Tribunal
- Tenancy
- Property law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.758 of 2025
======================================================
Shubham Kumar Son of Late Jyoti Chandra Vaishyakiar, Proprietor of Jagdish
Iron Works, at Tikari Road, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gaya- 824236.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board 34, Ali Imam Path, Haj Bhawan, Harding
Road, Patna- 800001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board, 34, Ali Imam
Path, Haj Bhawan, Harding Road, Patna- 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Adil Abbas, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard Mr. Rashid Izhar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad representing the Bihar State
Sunni Waqf Board (henceforth for short, ‘the Waqf Board’).
2. The present appeal has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“against the judgment and order, dated
08.07.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 02 of 2024
passed by the Chairman and Member of Bihar
State Waqf Tribunal, Patna, whereby the Suit was
dismissed at the stage of admission stage itself
referring to the pendency of an Eviction
Application No. 13 of 2020 earlier filed on behalf
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
2/8
of the Defendant and filing of this suit may delay
the Eviction Proceeding which is contrary to the
law prescribed for dismissal of suit at admission
stage and certified copy was received on
06.08.2025.”
3. The claim of the appellant is that he is a tenant of
the family members of Prayag Lal with whom the land was
settled by Baldev Lal Tatwari. In the year 1945, the land owner
gave 600 square feet of land from the eastern side for offering
‘namaz’ to a particular community. For the rest of the land, the
ownership right continued with the family of the Prayag Lal and
the appellant is/was under tenancy with the said family and also
paying rent to their caretaker, Noor Khan and later to his son,
Anwar Hussain till 2012 whereafter no one came forward to
receive the rent.
4. The submission is that treating the entire land to be
its own property, ‘the Waqf Board’ preferred Eviction
Application No. 13 of 2020 against the appellant and expecting
immediate eviction, he preferred Title Suit No. 02 of 2024
before the Bihar State Waqf Tribunal (henceforth for short
‘the Tribunal’).
5. It came to be dismissed on 08.07.2025 at the point
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
3/8
of admission itself holding that when the Eviction Application
No. 13 of 2020 is pending, after lapse of four-five years, filing
of the Title Suit raises eyebrows and it will only delay the
disposal of the Eviction Suit.
6. Aggrieved, the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this
Court to Section 54 of the Unified Waqf Management,
Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995
(henceforth for short ‘the Act’) relating to the removal of
encroachment which read as follows:
54. Removal of encroachment from
1
[waqf] property.—(1) Whenever the Chief
Executive Officer considers whether on receiving
any complaint or on his own motion that there has
been an encroachment on any land, building, space
or other property which is 1[waqf] property and,
which has been registered as such under this Act,
he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a
notice specifying the particulars of the
encroachment and calling upon him to show cause
before a date to be specified in such notice, as to
why an order requiring him to remove the
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
4/8
encroachment before the date so specified should
not be made and shall also send a copy of such
notice to the concerned mutawalli.
(2) The notice referred to in sub-section
(1) shall be served in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(3) If, after considering the objections,
received during the period specified in the notice,
and after conducting an inquiry in such manner as
may be prescribed, the Chief Executive Officer is
satisfied that the property in question is 1[waqf]
property and that there has been an encroachment
on any such 1[waqf] property, 2[he may, make an
application to the Tribunal for grant of order of
eviction for removing] such encroachment and
deliver possession of the land, building, space or
other property encroached upon to the mutawalli
of the 1[waqf].
3
[(4) The Tribunal, upon receipt of such
application from the Chief Executive Officer, for
reasons to be recorded therein, make an order of
eviction directing that the waqf property shall be
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
5/8
vacated by all persons who may be in occupation
thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the
order to be affixed on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the waqf property:
Provided that the Tribunal may before
making an order of eviction, give an opportunity
of being heard to the person against whom the
application for eviction has been made by the
Chief Executive Officer.
(5) If any person refuses or fails to
comply with the order of eviction within forty-five
days from the date of affixture of the order under
sub-section (2), the Chief Executive Officer or any
other person duly authorised by him in this behalf
may evict that person from, and take possession of,
the waqf property.]”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is
not a tenant of the Waqf Board, rather for decades, he is
enjoying tenancy over the land through its owner, the family of
Prayag Lal.
9. The contention is that very limited scope is there in
the Eviction proceeding and the appellant, on the one hand, is
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
6/8
having tenancy rights with the family of Prayag Lal; treating
him as encroacher, an application has been preferred and he
does not expect a fair order.
10. Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad representing ‘the Waqf
Board’ disputes the said contention of the appellant and submits
that the proviso of section 54 clearly shows that any order has
to be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
person against whom the application has been made.
11. The submission is that the petition has been
noticed, will have all the opportunity to bring on record the facts
to show that he is not an encroacher rather a tenant. However,
once the present eviction application was filed, ‘the Tribunal’
rightly took note of the fact that four-five years later, filing of
the Title suit raises eyebrows. He submits that the appellant only
wants delay of the suit.
12. Mr. Ahmad submits that on the one hand, the
appellant claims himself to be the tenant of the family members
of Prayag Lal and on the other hand; he prefers Title Suit for a
declaration on the basis of adverse possession which clearly
shows his fraud intention.
13. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
and the materials on record beside the submission of the parties.
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
7/8
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ahmad, on the one hand, the
appellant claims himself to be the tenant of the family of Prayag
Lal and refuses to accept the land to be part of ‘the Waqf
Board’, when a notice has been issued for removal of
encroachment. On the other hand, he prefers Title Suit for
declaration of his title on the basis of adverse possession.
14. Section 54 of ‘the Act’ has been incorporated
and learned counsel representing ‘the Waqf Board’ rightly
observed and even in the interest of justice, when a notice has
been issued, ‘the Tribunal’ is duty bound to give an opportunity
to the appellant to submit its response and show his bonafide
that the appellant is not an encroacher rather is tenant of Prayag
Lal.
15. Without availing the said remedy of filing show
cause before ‘the Tribunal’, he preferred Title Suit where family
members of Prayag Lal were even not impleaded as parties to
support his case.
16. This Court further records that it has also taken
note of the fact that though the appellant claims himself to be
the tenant of family of Prayag Lal, they were left out in the list
of defendants in the Title Suit and as respondents in the present
appeal too.
Patna High Court MA No.758 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
8/8
17. The facts have been recorded, the appellant has
opportunity to put forward his view before ‘the Tribunal’. There
is no reason to interfere with the order dated 08.07.2025 passed
by ‘the Tribunal’ in the Title Suit No. 02/2024.
18. With the aforesaid observation, the M.A. No. 758
of 2025 stands disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any,
also stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…