SHABBIR ALI Vs. MADHYA PRADESH WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision under Sec. 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dtd. 23/11/2015 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. 90/2012, by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) It is not out of place to mention here that applicant No. 1 Shabbir Ali, applicant No. 2 Mubarak Ali, and applicant No. 3 Haider Ali have expired during the pendency of this Civil Revision. The legal representatives of applicants Nos. 1 and 3 have been substituted, whereas the name of applicant No. 2 Mubarak Ali has been deleted.

(3.) The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that original applicants filed an application under Sec. 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 pleading inter alia that they are the owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 6 and 7, area 1.045, and area 0.052 respectively, situated in village Amargarh, Tehsil Maksudangarh, District Guna. Applicants are in possession of the land in dispute since their predecessors in title. Accordingly, it was pleaded that applicants have become the owner on the ground that they were the Maurusi Krishak. It was further pleaded that on the disputed property, Masjid, Idgah or Dargah was never situated and the property was also not recorded in the name of Masjid and Idgah. In the month of July, 2012, a fact came to the knowledge of applicant No. 1 that the property in dispute has been recorded in the name of Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board, and in the revenue record, said property has been mentioned as non-transferable, and in another column, name of Mausam Shah, son of Roshan Shah, has been recorded as Khidmatgar. Thereafter, when he obtained the copy of the revenue record, then he came to know that in the year 2008-2009, name of the father of the applicants was deleted and name of Waqf Board was recorded, and names of the predecessors of the applicants were recorded as Khidmatgar, and in the year 2011-2012, names of the predecessors of the applicants were completely deleted from the revenue records. Aforesaid action was taken without giving any information or opportunity of hearing to the applicants. It was further pleaded that in the Khasra entry of the year 1957-58, name of the father of plaintiffs/applicants was recorded as a Bhumiswami, and therefore, it was pleaded that it is clear that the land in dispute was in possession and ownership of the predecessors in title of the applicants. It was further pleaded that after verifying the record, it has come to their knowledge that the Waqf property is not situated in village Amargarh, but it is situated in Ganeshpura, and the same was also published in the official Gazette dtd. 25/8/1989. Thus, it was pleaded that the Waqf property is situated in village Ganeshpura and not in village Amargarh. It is further submitted that Khasra No. 36, area 0.418 hectare, has also been recorded in the name of Idgah/Masjid, and a publication was also done on 25/8/1989 in the official Gazette. It was further pleaded that applicants came to know for the first time in the month of July 2012, therefore, the cause of action arose on the said date. A notice was also issued to respondents on 10/9/2012. However, even after expiry of 60 days, no action was taken by respondents, and accordingly, application under Sec. 83 of Waqf Act was filed seeking a declaration that applicants are the owner and in possession of Khasra No. 6 and 7, total area 1.097 hectares, situated in village Amargarh, Tehsil Maksudangarh, District Guna, and it was also prayed that Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board be directed to correct the registration in the official Gazette and it should be mentioned that Khasra Nos. 6 and 7, total area 1.097 hectares, is situated in Ganeshpura and not Amargarh, and permanent injunction was also sought.