1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders, Annexures P/1 to P/4. These orders are passed by Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Commissioner and Board of Revenue, respectively.

2. Avoiding unnecessary details of the matter, in fact the singular question is whether the revenue authorities have power to act as an authority of first instance against the petitioners, who are allegedly occupying a wakf property. In other words, whether revenue authorities are competent to invoke section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (‘MPLRC’ for brevity) against the petitioners who are the alleged encroacher on a wakf property.

3. The revenue authorities have admitted that the property on which the petitioners have allegedly encroached is a wakf property, which is duly notified in the Official Gazette. This finding is given by the Member, Board of Revenue also in the impugned order, Annexure P/1.

4. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on section 248 of MPLRC submits that the said provision has no applicantion against the wakf property. Learned counsel by relying on certain sections of Wakf Act, 1995 submits that the said provision (section 248 of MPLRC) has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Anand V. Bharadwaji, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 supported the impugned order. As per their contention, the revenue authorities are well within their jurisdiction while invoking section 248 of MPLRC against the petitioners. Shri Bharadwaj placed reliance on 2011 RN 291= 2011 (II) MPJR 151, Govind Prasad vs. Vidhata and others; 1979 RN 122, Ramcharan vs. Moorti Shri Murli Manoharji Mandir; (1999) 8 SCC 16, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo vs. State of Bihar and others; 1992 RN 194, Kanchania (mst) vs. Shivram and 1971 RN 359, Pancham Singh vs. Mahant Ramkrishn Das and others. Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj by placing reliance on certain provisions of Wakf Act submits that ultimate power to administer the wakf properties is also in the hands of the officers appointed by the State Government. Once such ultimate control is in the hands of the officers of the State Government, no fault can be found in the action of the revenue authorities. The petitioners have not shown any title or right to continue on the land in question, they have no right to continue and enjoy the said property. Learned counsel by placing reliance on Maharaja Chintamami (supra) submits that even if revenue authorities have no jurisdiction and if it is found that legally the petitioners have no right, no interference is warranted. The analogy is drawn to show that once it is clear that the petitioners have no right or title on the land in question, even if revenue authorities have no jurisdiction, their orders are not liable to be interfered with in this petition.

6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.

7. It is relevant to refer to section 13 of the Wakf Act, 1995, which reads as under:-

“13. Incorporation. - (1) With effect from such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, there shall be established a Board of Wakfs under such name as may be specified in the notification.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the Shia wakfs in any State constitute in number more than fifteen per cent of all the wakfs in the State or if the income of the properties of the Shia wakfs in the State constitutes more than fifteen per cent of the total income of properties of all the wakfs in the State, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Board of Wakfs each for Sunni wakfs and for Shia wakfs under such names as may be specified in the notification.

(3) The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual s