The main legal point established in the judgment is the adherence to principles of natural justice and the reasonableness of the findings made by the Wakf Tribunal, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the Civil Revision Application.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent heard finally.

2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2012 in Appeal No. 4 of 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. It is the case of the revision applicants that, on 22nd September, 2003 the District Wakf Officer, Nanded, wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra State Board of Wakf for inquiry regarding the land Gat Nos. 432 and 443 situate at village Kiwla, Taluka Loha, District Nanded. On the basis of said letter, the Chief Executive Officer issued a notice under Section 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 read with Rule 20(3) of Wakf Rules. It is the case of the revision applicants that, the revision applicants did not receive notices and the notices are not served upon them.

On 19th January, 2005 the Chief Executive Officer passed the order under Section 52 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1995. On the basis of order, letter was issued by the District Wakf Officer, Nanded to District Collector (Atiyat) District Nanded for taking possession of land Gat Nos. 432 and 443.

On 25/28th March, 2007 the Additional Collector issued notice/order for taking possession of the above mentioned lands. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Additional Collector and the Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra State Board of Wakf filed appeal before the learned Wakf Tribunal at Aurangabad bearing Appeal No. 4 of 2008. The respondents herein, filed say in the said appeal. On 2nd February, 2012 said appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision applicants submits that, the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakf is having no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter under Section 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 as there is no resolution regarding delegation of power by the Wakf Board to the Chief Executive Officer in the present matter. It is further submitted that, the document relied by the Wakf Tribunal i.e. Exhibit-1, is not the sale deed but it is a lease deed, which also finds place in the judgment of the Wakf Tribunal in paragraph-46, where the reference is made to the documents as lease deed and Sauda Pauti, and therefore, the provisions of Section 51 of the Wakf Act, 1995 are not attracted. It is submitted that, this Court in the case of Abdul Kadar vs. Masjid Juma Darwaja reported in All.M.R. 2009(2) 148, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RameshGobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported in 2010(4) AIR SC 2897, has held that, the Wakf Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter regarding tenancy rights. It is the contention of the revision applicants that, remedy provided under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is applicable to the present case. It is submitted that, the Tribunal has not considered that, the land was granted for Kazat (madadmash) as per muntakhab, therefore, the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995 are not attracted. It is further submitted that, notice of the said proceedings was not properly served to the revision applicants and therefore, they could not defend their case before the Chief Executive Officer and the Collector, Nanded.

The learned Counsel for the revision applicants invited my attention to the provisions of Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and submitted that, the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board is having no power to conduct the inquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995. It is submitted that, under Section 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995, transfer of wakf property if is in contravention of Section 51, then after satisfaction of the Board and after making inquiry that, immovable property of wakf entered in the register of wakf maintained under Section 36, has been transferred without the previous sanction of the Board and in contravention of the provisions of Section 51, then only Board can send requisition to the Collec