MEHMOODA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Naik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Bhapkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1; and Shri Borde, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 is served, but had not filed appearance.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: land, Survey No. 128 of Taraf Giram, Beed, is service inam land. Respondent No. 3 is the Inamdar. The land was granted for rendering services at the mosque at Sarangpur. The petitioner has contended that she is in possession of the land since 1970 as a tenant. The Inamdar executed a registered lease deed in her favour on 25-10-1972 and leased the land for a period of 17 years. A complaint was made by the Marathwada Wakf Board to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, on 5-5-1962 that the Inamdar was not rendering services to the mosque and, therefore, the mosque was grossly neglected. It was in bad state of repairs. The land, which is granted to the Inamdar, therefore, be attached by the Government. So, the proceedings were instituted. However, the Wakf Board had communicated wrong survey number of the land and, therefore, the matter remained pending. After ascertaining the correct survey number of the land, the order for attachment of the land was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed on 29-5-1978, and it was further directed that the land be put to auction on yearly basis for cultivation.

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that the authorities below are confused as to whether the matter is covered under the Code or under the provisions of the said Act; and, in such circumstances, the orders passed by the lower authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that it was held that a lease by the Inamdar for a period more than three years was illegal; and that means that the Inamdar had the authority to lease the land for a period of three years. So, the possession of the petitioner as tenant ought to have been protected by giving necessary sanction. It is also contended by the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner can be protected under the Circular dated 9-8-1955 issued by the Government of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the orders passed by the authorities below be quashed and she be not dispossessed from the land.