Bombay High Court
Nasir Hussain S/O Abdul Rashid And ... vs Amravati Camp Masjid, Amravati ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
0308 CRA 34 of 2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34/2022
Nasir Hussain s/o Abdul Rashid and others
...Versus...
Amravati Camp Masjid, Amravati through its Secretary and another
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35/2022
Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh Jamal
...Versus...
Amravati Camp Masjid, Amravati through its Secretary and another
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.36/2022
Waseemullah s/o Naseemullah
...Versus...
Amravati Camp Masjid, Amravati through its Secretary and another
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.37/2022
Mohammad Firoz s/o Abdul Karim
...Versus...
Amravati Camp Masjid, Amravati through its Secretary and another
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------
Shri E.N. Quazi, Advocate for applicants in all revisions
Shri Mohammad Ateeque, Advocate for respondent no.1in all revisions
0308 CRA 34 of 2022.odt
2
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 03/08/2022
1. Heard Shri Quazi, learned counsel for the
applicants and Shri Mohammad Ateeque, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1 in all applications.
2. All the revision applications challenge the
judgments dated 11/02/2022, passed by the Maharashtra
State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, whereby the suits filed by
the Waqf Board/plaintiff have been partly decreed and the
defendant no.1 in all the matters have been directed to deliver
the vacant possession of the suit shops to the plaintiff within
three months from the date of the judgments. A further relief
of the defendant no.1 to pay amounts towards arrears of rent
for the period indicated in each judgment has also been
granted and further enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is also ordered.
3. Shri Quazi, learned counsel for the applicants
taking exception to the aforesaid judgments contends that all
the applicants had an indefinite lease from the erstwhile
mutawalli of the respondent - Waqf Institution and therefore
it was not permissible for the learned Tribunal to have
directed delivery of possession.
0308 CRA 34 of 2022.odt
4. Shri Mohammad Ateeque, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 submits that an indefinite lease is prohibited
by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, for which, he invites
my attention to Section 56 of the Waqf Act. He submits that all
the applicants claim an indefinite lease of more than 15 years
ago, considering which, the matter would be governed by the
provision of Section 56 (1) of the Waqf Act, as it stood then.
which prohibited lease beyond a period of three years and
therefore the learned Tribunal was correct in passing the
impugned judgments.
5. A perusal of Section 56 of the Waqf Act indicates
that a lease in excess for a period of three years was not
permissible prior to 01/11/2013, as against which, the present
applicants claim an indefinite lease in their favour more than
15 years prior to 01/11/2013. It is thus apparent that such a
claim, is clearly prohibited by Section 56 of the Waqf Act and
is specifically declared to be void and of no effect. It is not
disputed that in all these revision applications the applicants
claim entitlement to occupy the premises under a written
document of lease, for an indefinite period, which even
otherwise is impermissible under section 56 (1) of the Waqf
Act.
6. In this context, definition of an encroacher as
enumerated in Section 3 (ee) of the Waqf Act would
0308 CRA 34 of 2022.odt
substantiate this position, as it defines an encroacher to mean
a person occupying waqf property without the authority of law
and includes a person whose tenancy, lease or licence has
expired or has been terminated by the mutawalli or the Board.
7. In the instant case as the lease which is claimed
for an indefinite period is prohibited by Section 56 (1) of the
Waqf Act, which in such cases declares such lease to be void
and of no effect, the occupation of the applicants of the
individual premises cannot be termed anything but as
encroachers. That being the position, the protection of law, is
clearly not available. A perusal of the impugned judgments
would indicate that a finding has been rendered in light of the
provisions of Section 3 (ee) r/w Section 56 of the Waqf Act
that the occupation of the applicants could not be related to
any legality and therefore was that of encroachers, which in
light of what has been discussed above, is in consonance with
the above said provisions of law. That being the position, I do
not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments.
The civil revision applications are therefore dismissed with no
order as to costs.
8. At this juncture, Shri Quazi, learned counsel for
the applicants seeks six months' time to vacate the premises.
Though it is opposed by Shri Mohammad Ateeque, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1, however, considering the fact
0308 CRA 34 of 2022.odt
that the applicants are in occupation of the premises since
long, it is obvious that they would require some time to search
for alternate premises, considering which, time of six months
for vacating the premises is granted.
9. Needless to mention that in case the premises are
put to auction under the Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014,
the applicants shall have a right to participate in such auction.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
Signing Date:04.08.2022 17:48
