IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 28^th OF OCTOBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 522 of 2016 MUKESH YADAV Versus SECRETARY WAKF BOARD BHOPAL THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. N.K. Gupta – Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Saket Sharma – Advocate for appellant.

Mr. K.N. Gupta – Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. F.A. Shah and Ms. Suhani Dhariwal –

Advocates for respondents.

Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwaha – Govt. Advocate for State.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 26/10/2016 passed by District Judge, District Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 66A/2010, as well as judgment and decree dated 6/10/2010 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge, Class II, to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha, in Civil Suit No. 21A/2010.

Signature Not Verified

2. Appellant is the legal representative of original defendant Kashiram, who has lost his case from both the courts below.

3. It is the case of appellant that original defendant Kashiram was the owner and in possession of Khasra No. 658 area 0.021 hectare, Khasra No. 659 area 0.627 hectare, Khasra No. 660 area 7.625 hectare, Khasra No. 661 area 0.084 hectare, total area 8.384 hectares, situated in Vidisha. It was the case of original defendant Kashiram that property was leased out to him by Nathe Khan and the property in dispute is not the waqf property.

4. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether learned both the Courts below erred in not taking into consideration the documents exhibit D/5, D/7 and D/12 which shows that the land in dispute was the land of Natthe S/o Shri Manua but overlooking the same suit has wrongly been decreed?

(ii) Whether the suit as filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was not maintainable as there was no registered Wakf with regard to the land in dispute?

(iii) Whether learned both the courts below erred in entertaining the suit filed under Section 57 (3) of the Wakf Act which is wrong liable to be set aside ?

5. Since the property in dispute was declared as waqf property, therefore, legal representatives of Nathe Khan had filed an application under Section 83 (2) of Waqf Act. The application filed by legal representatives of Signature Not Verified Nathe Khan was dismissed by the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, by order dated 22/8/2019 passed in Case No. 33/2006. Against the rejection of application filed under Section 83 (2) of Waqf Act, legal representatives of Nathe Khan had filed Civil Revision No. 728/2019 [Zardar Khan S/o Shri Munir Khan (Died) Thr. Following Legal Rep. Hussain Khan And Others Vs. M.P. State Waqf Board Thr. And Others]. This Court, by a separate order passed today, has dismissed the aforesaid civil revision and has held that legal representatives of Nathe Khan have failed to prove that property in dispute was ever in the ownership and in possession of Nathe Khan or his predecessors.

6. In view of findings recorded by this Court in the case of Zardar Khan (supra), it is submitted by counsel for appellant that case in hand is duly covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Zardar Khan (supra).

7. Heard learned counsel for appellant.

8. This Court in the case of Zardar Khan (supra) has held as under:

“This civil revision has been filed under Section 83 (9) of Waqf Act against the order dated 22/8/2019 passed by M.P. State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal, in Case No. 33/2006, by which the suit filed by applicants under Section 83 (2) of Waqf Act has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that applicants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that old Khasra No. 3891 (new Khasra No. 658), 3892 (new Khasra No. 659), 3879 (new Khasra No. 660), 3880, 3893, 3894, 3895/1, 3896/1, 3881, 3895/2 (new Khasra No. 661), and 3896/2, total area 11.519 hectares = 52 bigha of land situated in Vidisha is the dispu