Hazrat Peer Raje Bagsar And Ors vs Maharashtra State Board Of Wakf ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2760 Bom

                                       1                  CRA / 222 / 2012



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            951 CRA NO.222 OF 2012
                       WITH CA/7095/2018 IN CRA/222/2012

                HAZRAT PEER RAJE BAGSAR AND ORS.
                             VERSUS
            MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF WAKF AND ORS.

                                      ...
                Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Gawali Amol K.
          Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Y.B. Pathan
                                      ...

                                CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                DATE       : 22 MARCH 2022

PC :

By way of this revision, under section 83 of the Wakf Act,

1995, revision petitioner is putting up a challenge to the judgment and

order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal dated

21-06-2012 dismissing the application seeking permission to sell the

wakf property.

2. The matter was admitted and the rule was issued on

26-08-2013 specifically reserving the liberty to move for early hearing

as and when any further order or final order was passed by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs

Vs. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawala and others; 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 555.

3. The learned advocate Mr. Gawali for the revision

petitioners by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra)

and particularly paragraph no. 10, tries to impress upon me as to how,

2 CRA / 222 / 2012

the facts and circumstances obtaining before the Supreme Court were

different and that the direction issued therein does not squarely apply

to the fact situation of the matter in hand and insists that this revision

can be independently heard and decided finally irrespective of the

order passed by the Supreme Court.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Y. B. Pathan for the respondent

submits that in view of the specific directions by the Supreme Court in

paragraph nos. 30 and 31, and the specific direction while admitting the

revision, the scenario does not undergo any change and this court

cannot proceed to decide the revision finally.

5. In my considered view, when this court while granting the

Rule, had specifically granted liberty to move for early hearing only

after any order was passed by the Supreme Court, or the matter was

decided finally by it, the propriety demands that the order should be

followed in letter and spirit, more so in view of the observations of the

Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 30 and 31, which read as under:-

"30. In these circumstances, in our view, it would be in the interest of all concerned to maintain the status quo and to restrain all those in management of the Wakf properties from alienating and/or encumbering the Wakf properties during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. The order of the High Court staying the operation of the judgment has led to the revival of interim orders which have rendered such stay otiose. The said order of stay cannot also be continued during the pendency of these proceedings in its present form.

31. Accordingly, at this stage, we direct that in relation to Wakf properties, as distinct from Trusts created by Muslims,

3 CRA / 222 / 2012

all concerned, including the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, shall not permit any of the persons in management of such Wakf properties to either encumber or alienate any of the properties under their management, till a decision is rendered in the pending Special Leave Petitions."

6. To be listed for hearing after the Supreme Court decides

the matter finally or passes some further orders.

[ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE arp/