Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the applicants (original applicants) challenging an order dated 21/10/2009 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Maharashtra State Waqf Board, Aurangabad, which was affirmed by the Waqf Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 10/5/2018 in Waqf Application No.78/2009. The CEO had granted the application filed by respondent No.2 (Chaitanshah Peer Mira Shaha Sayyed Hussaini Waqf) for removal of encroachment made by the applicants on land Survey No.306, situated at village Rahamatpur, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, on the ground that the said land was Waqf property. The applicants contended that the land was not Waqf property and that they were in possession as owners. The CEO and the Tribunal relied on revenue records and a survey report indicating the land as Waqf property. The High Court, in revision under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, examined the scope of interference and held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. The court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, and the order of the Waqf Tribunal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Waqf Law - Encroachment Removal - Determination of Waqf Property - Sections 54, 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 - The CEO of the Waqf Board has power to remove encroachments from Waqf properties. The Waqf Tribunal affirmed the CEO's order based on revenue records and survey report showing the land as Waqf property. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 2-10)
B) Waqf Law - Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995 - The revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors or perversity. The High Court found no such error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the revision. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land in question is a Waqf property and whether the encroachment removal order passed by the CEO and affirmed by the Waqf Tribunal is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The order of the CEO dated 21/10/2009 and the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal dated 10/5/2018 are upheld.
Law Points
- Waqf property determination
- Encroachment removal under Waqf Act
- Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal
- Revision under Section 83(9) of Waqf Act
- 1995
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (06) 2
Civil Revision Application No.113 of 2018
Shri Y.B. Pathan for applicants, Shri N.E. Deshmukh for respondent No.1, Shri Pravin Mandlik (Senior Counsel) instructed by Shri P.P. Mandlik for respondent No.2
Liyakat s/o Kasam Mulla, Mohammad Ali Hussain Mulla (deceased through L.Rs.), Rahimatullah s/o Rashid Mulla, Inayatullah s/o Rashid Mulla
Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, Chaitanshah Peer Mira Shaha Sayyed Hussaini Waqf, Aziz s/o Hadi Inamdar, Ayyaz s/o Yakub Mulla
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the order of the CEO of Waqf Board and the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal regarding removal of encroachment from alleged Waqf land.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought to set aside the order of the CEO dated 21/10/2009 and the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal dated 10/5/2018 which directed removal of encroachment from Survey No.306.
Filing Reason
The applicants claimed that the land Survey No.306 was not Waqf property and that they were owners in possession, and the encroachment removal order was illegal.
Previous Decisions
The CEO of the Maharashtra State Waqf Board passed an order on 21/10/2009 granting the application of respondent No.2 for removal of encroachment. The Waqf Tribunal affirmed that order on 10/5/2018 in Waqf Application No.78/2009.
Issues
Whether the land Survey No.306 is a Waqf property?
Whether the order of the CEO and the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal are sustainable in law?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the land was not Waqf property and that they were in possession as owners.
The respondents contended that the land was Waqf property as per revenue records and survey report, and the encroachment removal order was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the CEO and the Waqf Tribunal, based on revenue records and survey report, that the land is Waqf property, cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995, unless perverse or without jurisdiction. No such error was found.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this revision application is to the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.), Maharashtra State Waqf Board, Aurangabad on 21/10/2009 and affirmed by the Waqf Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 10/5/2018, passed in Waqf Application No.78/2009.
The C.E.O., Waqf Board granted the application filed by the respondent No.2 for removal of encroachment made by the applicants herein on the land Survey No.306, situated at village Rahamatpur, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara since the said land has been held to be the property of the Waqf – Chaitanshah Peer Mira Shaha Sayyed Hussaini Waqf.
Procedural History
The CEO of the Maharashtra State Waqf Board passed an order on 21/10/2009 allowing the application of respondent No.2 for removal of encroachment from Survey No.306. The applicants challenged this order before the Waqf Tribunal, which dismissed the challenge and affirmed the CEO's order on 10/5/2018 in Waqf Application No.78/2009. The applicants then filed the present Civil Revision Application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
