The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following proper procedures for appointment and removal of mutawallis and the importance of considering existing schemes in the decision-making process.

T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. The revision applications are filed to challenge the judgment and order of Wakf Application Nos. 45/2011 and 47/2011, which were pending before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The first two applications are filed to challenge the entire decision and the third application is filed to challenge decision of Tribunal only to the extent of order of remand made by the Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsels for the respondents and the learned counsel for Wakf Board. The dispute is with regard to the right of management to Jama Masjid, Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar and in respect of immovable properties given as Service Inam lands for rendering services to the Masjid. There are shops in the campus of Masjid and there are agricultural lands and house properties situated at Warur and Shevgaon.

2. The petitioners from CRA No. 21/2013 and two more Muslim persons (hereinafter referred to as 'the trustees' for short) had applied for registration of trust of this Masjid under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust Act' for short) and the trust came to be registered on 28-2-1973. In the year 2002, Mohammad Sallauddin (the petitioner from CRA Nos. 170 and 171 of 2012) filed application before the Wakf Board for registration of the aforesaid properties under Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wakf Act' for short). This application was opposed by the trustees and few more persons including Kazi Raisuddin. The Trustees claimed that the management was already with the trustees, the institution was registered under the Trust Act and so, the inquiry under section 36 of Wakf Act was uncalled for. Persons like Raisuddin claimed that they were also hereditary Mutawallis. Father of Mohammad Sallauddin namely Mohammad Bahauddin claimed that he was hereditary Mutawalli. The father of Sallauddin gave no objection for appointing Sallauddin as Mutawalli before the Wakf Board.

3. The Chairman of Wakf Board made order on 14-6-2006 and appointed Sallauddin as Mutawalli under section 67 of Wakf Act. This order is set aside by the Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad in proceedings filed by trustee and Raisuddin by the decision dated 31-5-2012. The Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the Wakf Board and a direction is given to see that other applications like application of Raisuddin are also considered and decided. It is observed by the Tribunal that if new Mutawalli is to be appointed, removal of the trustees is necessary and that ought to have been done after following procedure by the Board.

4. It was mainly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. P.R. Patil for the petitioners that the Tribunal ought to have decided the claim of the parties also with regard to the right of management and there was no necessity to remand the matter back to Wakf Board. It was submitted for trustees that in view of nature of relief claimed, setting aside the order made by the Wakf Board in favour of Sallauddin was sufficient and there was no need to give directions to the Board to reconsider the matter. It was submitted for the trustees that when the trustees were managing the affairs, there was no need of appointment of new Mutawalli and so, there was no need of remanding the matter.

5. It appears that against the trustees, there are allegations that they gave properties of Masjid on lease for the consideration of nominal amount for the period of 99 years and they are not acting in the interest of wakf. On the other hand, there are allegations against Mohammad Sallauddin and his father that by getting appointment as Mutawalli, they want to grab the properties of the wakf. It appears that a suit was filed by father of Sallauddin in which Sallauddin gave consent to delete few properties of wakf from the list. The record of such litigation is available. In view of nature of dispute involved in the present matter and the scope of the present proceedings, there is no need to discus