IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 485 of 2013 BETWEEN:-

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MANDIDEEP THR CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MANDIDEEP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ASHISH GIRI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. OKAF PRABANDH COMMITTEE WAKF MASJID MOHAMMADI AND IDGAH MANDIDEEP THR PRESIDENT MOHAMMAD SOHEL KHAN H.NO.262 NEAR MOHAMMADI MASJID WARD NO.9 MANDIDEEP TAH GOUHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (REVENUE) TAHSIL GOHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TEHSILDAR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TEHSIL GOHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER M.P. WAKF BOARD OFFICE TAJ CAMPUS, NEAR TAJUL MASJID, BHOAPL (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SHRI VIPIN BHARGAVA S/O SHRI BRIJ KISHORE BHARGAVA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: (EX-NAGAR PALIKA PRESIDENT, MANDIDEEP RAILWAY STATION DAHOUD ROAD, MANDI, WARD NO. 17, MANDIDEEP, TAH.

GOUHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI MUKHTAR AHMAD - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1)

(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)

This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This civil revision is filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad Mandideep under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 being aggrieved of the order dated 11/10/2013 passed by the learned Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. 85/2013 whereby it has directed the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the disputed land till the decision of the case and directed not to carry out any dismantling or construction or organization of any religious or social function.

This civil revision is pending since ten years. There is a stay on the orders of the learned Wakf Tribunal.

Shri Ashish Giri submits that the land which belongs to the Wakf is contained in Survey no. 144 where Collector, Raisen had allotted five acres of land for construction of Idgah vide order dated 3/06/1996 and that is the place where prayers are offered on Idd/Bakar Idd.

It is submitted that the land contained in survey no. 556 measuring five acres is neither the property of the Wakf nor that allotted to the Wakf for construction of Idgah. Infact, it is a Government land which is appurtenant to the Government High School. It is used as a playground for the students studying in the Government High School. It is submitted that despite there being no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, learned Tribunal showed indulgence by directing the parties to maintain the status quo as was existing on the date of the order.

Shri Mukhtar Ahmed has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV Court in Telangana State Wakf Board and another Vs. Mohamed Muzafar (2021) 9 SCC 179 wherein it is held that there cannot be any attempt by the High Court to reappreciate the evidence tendered before the Tribunal that may be permissible in appeal but not in the revision petition.

In a revision petition, the scope of consideration is limited and the judgment/order under challenge can be interfered with only in the event of there being perversity seen on the face of the order and if the conclusion reached cannot be acceptable to any reasonable person.

Thus, placing reliance on this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that there cannot be any reappreciation of the material and this court is only required to see that whether the order on the face of the record is perverse.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record so also taking the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telangana State Wakf Board (supra), I am of the opinion that there is no perversity in the impugned order calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

It is surprising that the petitioner is prolonging the