Bombay High Court
Management Committee Idgah, ... vs The Maharashtra State Waqf Board ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 CRA-144.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2016
Management Committee Idgah
Risala Bazar, Hingoli
Through its Secretary
Moiz Khan s/o Mansur Khan,
Age: 45 years, Occu: Mechanic
R/o Near Zakir Hussian Chowk,
Risala Bazar Chowk, Hingoli
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ... Applicant
versus
1.
The Maharashtra State Waqf Board
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Panchakki, Aurangabad.
2. The Municipal Council, Hingoli
Through its Chief Officer,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ... Respondents
-----
Mr. Hamzakhan I. Pathan, Advocate for applicant
Mr. Sameer S. Patel, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13630 of 2016
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2016
The Municipal Council, Hingoli
Through its Chief Officer,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. .. Applicant
versus
1. Management Committee Idgah
Risala Bazar, Hingoli.
Through its Secretary
Moiz Khan s/o Mansur Khan,
Age: 56 years, Occu: Mechanic
R/o Risala Bazar, Hingoli
Dist. Hingoli.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:39:22 :::
2 CRA-144.16.doc
2. Maharashtra State Board of Wakf,
Through Chief Executive Officer,
Panchakki, Aurangabad. .. Respondents
----
Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant
Mr. Hamzakhan I. Pathan, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Mr. Sameer S. Patel, Advocate for respondent no. 2
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 24th October, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
counsel for the parties finally, by consent.
Heard learned
2. The applicant purporting to be aggrieved by order on
Exhibit - 5 rejecting request for injunction against the
respondents in Wakf suit no. 115 2016 passed on 27-09-2016
by District Judge/Presiding Officer, Maharashtra State Waqf
Tribunal, Aurangabad, is before this court.
3. The dispute appears to be with regard to area of applicant
- Idgah. While the applicant - Idgah claims it to be 1334. 3
square metre, the other side claims that it is not more than 86
ft. x 66 ft. In respect of the same, proceedings are going on
before the Wakf Board.
4. It appears that a layout had come up in respect of survey
number 21, to be precise of Nehru Nagar Colony and had been
3 CRA-144.16.doc
shown road on northern side of Idgah, which is claimed by
applicants is passing through area of applicant - Idgah.
5. Some litigation earlier on had also been there ensued by
and against applicant - Idgah. In wakf suit no. 96 of 2007 by
present applicant-plaintiff before the tribunal for perpetual
injunction against defendants in the suit, an application for
temporary injunction had been filed which had been rejected
against defendant no. 3. There was yet another litigation under
regular civil suit no. 230 of 2008 against State government and
others, including present plaintiff. Suit was decreed and
perpetual injunction had been granted restraining defendants
from closing road on northern side of Idgah.
6. Wakf Tribunal in the present matter has taken stock of the
situation, finding that on the northern side of Idgah, there is road
and it is not in possession of the Idgah and that even the Wakf
board has yet not taken cognizance of the area being as
claimed by Idgah. The Wakf tribunal, from the material, the past
record and the photographs which had been placed on record
and looking at the progress in construction of road, has
considered that general public and the municipal body would be
kept at bay under the ad-interim injunction order passed by the
tribunal causing inconvenience and further that Idgah may not be
4 CRA-144.16.doc
at this stage would be said to have any benefit from the same.
In the process the tribunal has rejected the application under
order dated 27-09-2016. It is this order which has been
impugned in present civil revision application.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
particularly looking at the stage at which the construction is
resting under the ad-interim orders passed by this court, it
would not be expedient on either side to let the things lie as
they are since the position as obtaining today is not likely to
benefit anyone.
8. It appears that as on the date, it cannot be firmly said
that the claim of Idgah for an area of 1334.3 square metre is final
and conclusive. It would be pertinent to consider that
continuation of ad-interim relief given by this court would not
serve any useful purpose on either side. In case Idgah would be
in a position to vindicate its claim about area admeasuring
1334.3 square meters, the activity of construction of road would
be at the risk and peril of the defendants. If claim of Idgah is
found to be proper and legal, the tribunal in the proceedings
may pass appropriate orders in respect of the same. Presently it
appears that construction road has got halted in its final stages,
which is not conducive to the interest of either side.
5 CRA-144.16.doc
9. With aforesaid observations, civil revision application is
disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Ad-interim relief granted
by this court from today would cease to operate.
10. It is made clear that observation in this decision are for
decision on interim relief application and shall have no efficacy
further and shall not affect decision making in main proceeding
which shall be decided on its own merits.
11.
The tribunal may proceed with and decide the suit as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
12. In view of aforesaid, civil application stands accordingly
disposed of. Rule stands discharged.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
