1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties and these Applications are taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission itself.

4. These are two counter Revision Applications, filed by the parties, challenging the order dated 18.6.2016, passed below Exh.5, by the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Waqf Appeal No.1 of 2016. Hence they are being decided by this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these two petitions are referred to by their original nomenclatures as “appellant/petitioner trust” and “respondents”.

6. One Mr. Salim Khan Ahmed Khan, has filed an Application against original respondent Nos. 1 to 6 namely Uttam Mahale and others, under Section 40 of the Waqf Act, 1995, before the Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, for declaring that the lands bearing survey Nos.980 and 981 situated at Morewadi, Taluka and District: Nashik, are the Waqf properties of the original appellant No.1, the Dudhadhari Masjid Trust. This application came to be registered as Case No.MSBW/Enq/40/54/2012 and after conducting enquiry into the said application, the Chief Executive Officer of the said Waqf Board, came to the conclusion that these lands are not the Waqf properties and same were purchased by the father of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 viz. Uttam Mahale and others, as per the provisions of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, “B.T. & A.L. Act” for short), and hence they are the owners of the said lands. Therefore, by her order dated 4.2.2016, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, rejected the application of the trust, for declaring them as properties of the Waqf.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Trust approached Waqf Tribunal by filing Appeal No.01 of 2016. Along with the said Appeal, the application at Exh.5 was also filed, for restraining respondent Nos. 1 to 7, therein, from creating third party interests in the trust property or transferring the possession of the flats constructed thereon. The Tribunal allowed the said application partly, by passing the following order:-

“1. Application is allowed partly.

2. The construction of the suit property and it's completion and transfer of possession of the flats to the intending purchasers who have booked the flats shall be subject to the final decision of this appeal.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 shall intimate to the intending purchaser about pendency of this appeal and further notify them that the agreements by above said respondents with the intending purchasers are subject to the final decision of this appeal.

4. If any further agreement/agreements is/are entered by the above said respondents with the intending purchasers, they will also be informed expressly about pending of this appeal and that the transaction of sale of the flats is subject to final decision of this appeal”.

8. Against this order of the Tribunal, both parties have approached this Court, invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

9. Civil Revision Application 429 of 2016 is preferred by the respondent No.7, who has purchased the development rights over the said property from the original owners Uttam Mahale and others, and had undertaken the construction thereon; whereas Civil Revision Application No.548 of 2016 is preferred by the Trust, being aggrieved, particularly only with the part of the order, namely clause No.2, allowing the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to complete and transfer possession of the suit flats to the intending purchasers. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner trust that once the possession of Waqf property is handed over to the flat purchasers, it would be difficult to recover the same and hence to that extent, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.

10. Per contra, on behalf of res