Back
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE
Hazrat Peer Raje Bagsar, Peerwadi – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Wakf – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandipkumar C. More, J.
1. The present applicants, who are the original applicants in Waqf Application No.13/20111, have preferred this Revision Application for challenging the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal (hereinafter referred as “the learned Tribunal”). As per the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application of the applicants, challenging the legality and correctness of the Resolution of Waqf Board bearing No.15/2010 dated 08.02.2010 and the consequent communication to them by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), bearing No. MRVM/SNT-456/3510/2010 dated 17.06.2010.
2. The background facts of the case are as under:
The present applicant Nos.2 to 9 are the Mutwalli of the applicant No.1 Waqf property. Whereas, the applicant Nos.10 to 17 are the prospective purchasers of the Waqf property.
3. The applicant No.1 is an old Waqf, consisting of Darga and Masjid registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 at PTR B-196/Satara. After commencement of the Walf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), the same is deemed to be registered under Section 43 of the Act and entered in Kitabul Awkaf m
The Waqf Board has the authority to review its resolutions, and the sale of Waqf property must adhere to statutory procedures to protect Waqf interests.
The Waqf Board must adhere to the rules of succession as per the waqf deed, reinforcing the principle of governance according to established customs and the intent of the waqif.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board lacks inherent power to review its own orders, and disputes must be addressed before the Waqf Tribunal as per the Waqf Act, 1995.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board lacks inherent power to review its own orders; disputes must be addressed by the Waqf Tribunal as per the Waqf Act, 1995.
when there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent....
Misrepresentation by a party during proceedings undermines their legal claims, rendering a review application untenable when prior ownership admissions and evidence of estoppel exist.
Point of Law : Due process need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the replacement of the Scheme Court by the Waqf Board as per Section 32 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and the requirement for the Official Trustee to comp....
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
