Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Sayyed Moinuddin S/o Sayyed Saifoddin – Appellant
Versus
Pratapsingh S/o Nursing Kakarwal – Respondent
Civil Revision Application No.3 of 2021 With Civil Revision Application No.4 of 2021
Decided on : 14-02-2024
Wakf Tribunal - Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal - Wakf Act 1995, Section 36, Section 54, Section 83(2), Section 85 - The court allowed the Suit and application of the plaintiff as prayed. The plaintiff proved that the defendants were causing disturbance to his possession of the Suit land. The Tribunal also held that the Suit was within limitation and the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. The order registering the Waqf Institution Masjid and Graveyard with its property mentioned in the Jodpatra under Section 36 of the Waqf Act 1995, dated 03.05.2012 in File No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 and order dated 30.04.2012 in File No. A.B.D./259/2012 is not proper, correct, or legal. Hence, those are quashed and set aside. The Suit was not hit by Section 52(4) of the Act 1995 before its amendment. The proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable under Section 54(4) of the Act. The impugned orders are free from illegality and infirmity. Both revision applications stand dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, for a declaration that the orders of the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad, including the Survey Gut No.66 of village Harsool, District Aurangabad, in the Book/register of Waqf, maintained by the Board and its registration No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 dated 03.05.2012 be quashed and set aside. The plaintiff also sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference, disturbance in their ownership and peaceful possession over the Suit land Survey No.66. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land was the Inam of Madad Maash and that he was the owner and possessor of the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Suit and application of the plaintiff as prayed. The plaintiff proved that the defendants were causing disturbance to his possession of the Suit land. The Tribunal also held that the Suit was within limitation and the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. The order registering the Waqf Institution Masjid and Graveyard with its property mentioned in the Jodpatra under Section 36 of the Waqf Act 1995, dated 03.05.2012 in File No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 and order dated 30.04.2012 in File No. A.B.D./259/2012 is not proper, correct, or legal. Hence, those are quashed and set aside. The Suit was not hit by Section 52(4) of the Act 1995 before its amendment. The proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable under Section 54(4) of the Act. The impugned orders are free from illegality and infirmity. Both revision applications stand dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the property, the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board, the composite Muntakhab, the limitation of the Suit, the binding nature of the order of C.E.O. adding the Suit land in a Wakf register, and the maintainability of the Suit in view of Section 54 (4) of the Wakf Act 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Suit was within limitation and the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. The order registering the Waqf Institution Masjid and Graveyard with its property mentioned in the Jodpatra under Section 36 of the Waqf Act 1995, dated 03.05.2012 in File No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 and order dated 30.04.2012 in File No. A.B.D./259/2012 is not proper, correct, or legal. Hence, those are quashed and set aside. The Suit was not hit by Section 52(4) of the Act 1995 before its amendment. The proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable under Section 54(4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The impugned orders are free from illegality and infirmity. Both revision applications stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the respective learned counsels for the parties.
2. The original defendants No.1 and 2 have impugned the judgment and order of the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, passed in Wakf Suit Nos.4 of 2014 and 6 of 2014.
3. The "applicants" would be referred to as "defendant Nos.1 and 2" and respondent No.1 would be referred to as "plaintiff".
4. The plaintiff had filed a suit before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, for a declaration that the orders of the Chief Executive Officer ("C.E.O." for short) of the Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad ("the Board" for short), in file No.54/154/2012, dated 23.01.2013 arising out of file No. A.B.D./259/2012, including the Survey Gut No.66 of village Harsool, District Aurangabad, in the Book/register of Waqf, maintained by the Board and its registration No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 dated 03.05.2012 passed by the C.E.O. pursuant to the so-called entry in the concerned Gazette is time-barred, hollow, inactive, in-executable, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The order dated 28.01.2013 arising out of the order dated 23.01.2013 in file No.54/154/2012 by C.E.O. arising out of the order dated 30.04.2012 of C.E.O. in File No. A.B.D./259/2012, including the property Gut No. 66 of village Harsool in Book/Register of Waqf maintained by the Board and its registration No. MSBW/ABD/319/2012 dated 03.05.2012 be quashed and set aside. Further, the declaration has been sought that the order of the C.E.O. of the Board directing the plaintiff to remove his possession from the suit land is bad in law. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference, disturbance in their ownership and peaceful possession over the Suit land Survey No.66 was also sought.
5. Before filing a suit No.6/2014, the plaintiff had filed Waqf Application No.04.2014 under Section 83(2) on similar facts and claimed the similar reliefs. However, the Waqf Tribunal has passed two separate orders in these two petitions. The issue revolved around the same facts and was decided on the day. Hence, it is taken up for hearing together and disposal by common judgment.
6. The learned Tribunal allowed the Suit and application of the plaintiff as prayed.
7. The plaintiff had claimed that the suit land was the Inam of Madad Maash. It belonged to one Inamdar Mr. Sayyed Amiroddin. The forefathers of the plaintiff were the tenants of the Suit land. Their names were recorded as tenants. After the demise of their forefather, the plaintiff got the title and possession of the Suit land. The Government took possession of the Suit land as per Sections 5 and 6 of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 ("The Inam Act" for short). In 1958, Inamdar Syed Amiroddin preferred an application before the Collector for a declaration that he was entitled to the entire "Lawani" amount of the Suit land. By order dated 27.03.1959, the Collector declared that the suit land was a Madad-e-Maash and Amiroddin was entitled to receive the Lawani amount. The tenants had challenged the said order, and lastly, the competent authority/Collector held that the plaintiff and his predecessor were the tenants of the Suit lands, and it was a Madad Maash land. By order dated 26.02.1979 in case No.75/Watan/5, the Collector passed an order of occupancy rights of the Suit land and granted it to Narsingh Gotiram Kakarwal, the plaintiff's father, under Section 6 of the Inam Act. Thereafter, by order dated 21.04.1981, the Tahsildar determined the occupancy price for Rs.288/-. The plaintiff's father deposited the said amount and received the occupancy certificate in his name. Then, mutation entry No.3067 was sanctioned in the name of plaintiff's father.
In this way, the plaintiff's father became the absolute owner of the suit land, and after his demise, the plaintiff inherited the same.
8. Suddenly, the plaintiff received a notice dated 23.10.2013 from Tahsildar for the removal of encroachment f
The property was determined to be Wakf, with sales executed without the Wakf Board's sanction declared void, affirming the Muthavalli's right to maintain the suit.
(1) In a Revision Petition scope of consideration is limited and judgment/order under challenge can be interfered only in event of there being perversity seen on face of order and if conclusion reach....
The jurisdiction for disputes concerning Wakf properties lies exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, not civil courts, reinforcing the necessity for timely legal action under the WAKF ACT.
The irreversibility of wakf property transactions based on the Wakf Act's provisions prohibits alienation, upholding the integrity of religious and charitable purposes over contested claims.
The rejection of a plaint for lack of cause of action must be substantively justified; merely asserting lack of merit without proper consideration of presented evidence is insufficient.
Important PointGrants by way of service inams for the purposes recognized by the muslim law as pious, religious or charitable would clothe the property with character of wakf.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction to determine eviction claims even if waqf status is asserted, unless unequivocally proven as such. Defendants cannot contest landlord's title without substantiating t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
