SAYED NASER KADRI MOIUDDIN Vs. MAHARASHTRA WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Revision Applications are admitted and heard finally with consent of learned counsel for Petitioners and Respondent Wakf Board.

(2.) THESE Revision Applications arise out of common order passed by the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal in Wakf Appeal Nos. 3 of 2006, 11 of 2006 and 13 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, documents are being referred to from the record of Civil Revision Application No.184 of 2012. Common submissions have been made by counsel for both the sides.

(3.) I have heard counsel for Petitioners and the learned counsel for Wakf Board. Learned counsel for Petitioners based his arguments referring to the documents from Civil Revision Application No.184 of 2012. He pointed out application dated 29th June, 1999 (Exhibit A) which was addressed to the Collector, Beed by the Office of Marathwada Wakf Board, Panchakki, Aurangabad (now "Maharashtra Wakf Board"). The application was for the attachment of service inam lands pertaining the Dargah Hazrat Syed Shah Ibrahim Sheh, Neknoor, Dist -Beed as the same were in unauthorized possession. The application gave list of various survey numbers. Attachment of the properties was sought to safe -guard the Wakf properties. Exhibit B is the order dated 16th August, 2000 passed by the Additional District Collector, Beed rejecting the case which was registered as 2000CD/I/Appeal -10, on the ground of delay and non payment of Court fees. Learned counsel for Petitioners then referred to the Regular Civil Appeal No.149 of 2000 which was filed before the District Court, Beed (Exhibit C). The appeal was carried under Section 36(B) of the Wakf Act, 1954. The District Judge, after considering the provisions of Section 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995, took a view that only Collector was empowered and orders passed by the Additional Collector were improper. • Learned counsel for Petitioners submitted that inspite of such order of the District Judge, the application filed by the Wakf Board under Section 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 was taken up by the Additional Collector, and passed orders, as can be seen at Exhibit D, directing the Tahsildar to attach the properties concerned and to cancel the illegal mutation entries. Counsel submitted that against such orders, the Petitioners had filed Wakf Appeals, mentioned above. It is his argument that the Wakf Tribunal came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the Additional Collector were not under Section 52 of the Wakf Act and so the appeal was not maintainable. Submission of the counsel is that if the Tribunal was finding that it was not an appeal under Section 52(4) of the Wakf Act, then it was not necessary for the Tribunal to decide that the 14 properties were Wakf properties. The Tribunal held that the Additional Collector had decided the matter under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Atiyat Inquires Act, 1995 ("Atiyat Act" in brief). According to the counsel, order dated 2nd February, 2006 of the Additional Collector nowhere mentions that it was under the Atiyat Act. According to the counsel for Petitioners, Exhibit F filed by the Petitioners shows that Petitioner Paryagbai (of Civil Revision Application No.188 of 2013) and Balbhim (Petitioner No.13 of Civil Revision Application No.184 of 2012) were granted permission under Section 6(3) of Hyderabad Abolition of Inam Lands Act, 1954 to purchase the properties mentioned in the document treating the property as MADATMASH land i.e. personal inam. Counsel submitted that the impugned orders of the Tribunal need to be set aside, as according to him the Additional Collector could not have passed the orders due to directions of the District Judge that Collector himself should decide the matter.