DEELIP Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding is filed under section 83 (9) of Waqf Act, 1995 to challenge the judgment and order of Waqf Tribunal Aurangabad delivered in Waqf Application No. 66/2012. The application filed by present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under section 83 (2) of Waqf Act, 1995 is allowed by the Tribunal and the transaction of lease made in favour of present revision applicants by the Chief Officer of Waqf Board is declared as being null and void, nonest and it is cancelled. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) Present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the persons interested in waqf, Dargah Hazrat Sayyad Shah Dawood Gung Lashkar Magrabi Aulia, Baijipura, Aurangabad. Property bearing C.T.S. No. 12504 (out of survey No. 33) admeasuring 4593 Sq. Mtrs. belongs to this institution, a religious institution. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 perform religious rites and worship at the said Dargah and so, they say that they are the persons interested in the waqf.

(3.) In the proceeding filed before the Waqf Tribunal, they challenged the transaction of lease made by the Chief Officer on 7.12.2011 in favour of present revision applicants. The lease document of the aforesaid property was made for the period of three years. It is the contention of the original applicants that in view of the provisions of section 56 of Waqf Act, the transaction is void. It is contended that the transaction was not made by Board and so, the transaction cannot be recognized in the eyes of law. It is also contended that the transaction is void as it provides for renewal of the lease and the renewal power is given to the lessee and nothing is left in the hands of Board. It is contended that the power is given to lessee to give sub-lease and that is also against the provisions of Waqf Act. It is also contended that the transaction is against the interest of waqf and the transaction has caused heavy loss to waqf. It is contended that the property is situated in the heart of the city and if the opportunity was given to others, the annual income from the property would have been more than Rs. one Crore. It is contended that no prior procedure was followed before giving property to the present lessee.