Bombay High Court
Mr. Hafiz Kari Ahmed Hasan Abdul Shakur ... vs Mr. Kazi Sayed Nizamuddin And Another on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:47865
HMK 1 01. FA-700 to 703-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2014
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2014
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2014
Mr. Hafiz Kari Ahmed Hasan Abdul Shakur
Ousmani & Ors. ....Appellants
Versus
Peer Hazart Khawaja Hisamuddin Katallae
Zanzani Chisti Thro. Trustees & Beneficiaries ....Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 703 OF 2014
Mr. Hafiz Kari Ahmed Hasan Abdul Shakur Ousmani ....Appellant
Versus
Mr. Kazi Sayed Nizamuddin Azizuddin & Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Harshal Mule for
Appellants.
Mr. Sagheer A. Khan a/w. Mr. Aqil S. Khan, Adv. Sauda, Adv. Insha,
Adv. Fatima, Adv. Daood, Adv. Tasmiya, Adv. Gufran, Adv. Afsha, i/by
Judicare Law Associates for Respondent No.1A to 1E.
__________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 10th NOVEMBER 2025
P. C. :
1. In these present appeals, the issue which arises for my consideration is
whether the Charity Commissioner has the power to modify a scheme framed and
settled by a Civil Court prior to 1950 i.e. before the enactment of the Maharashtra
Public Trusts Act, 1950. The second issue which arises is if the Charity
HMK 2 01. FA-700 to 703-2014.doc
Commissioner has the jurisdiction, then whether in the facts of the present case,
the Charity Commissioner has exercised his power in accordance with law.
2. When this appeal came up for final hearing on 30 th September, 2025, the
learned senior counsel Mr. Gorwadkar brought to my attention, an amendment
made to the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act on 01 st September, 2025 by
Maharashtra Ordinance No.VII of 2025. By this amendment, Section 50B is
sought to be introduced and in the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated
that the amendment was brought to resolve the issue of jurisdiction between the
Civil Court and the Charity Commissioner.
3. Mr. Gorwadkar, learned senior counsel submits that by virtue of this
amendment, Charity Commissioner has the power to modify the scheme, which
was settled by the Civil Court prior to 1950. He submits that this amendment is
retrospective or at least retroactive.
4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this amendment
is not applicable to the facts of the present case at all and assuming it is applicable,
it is prospective in nature.
5. Admittedly, the learned District Judge did not have the benefit of Section
50B of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, since the impugned order is dated 27 th
June, 2013 whereas the amendment which is sought to be relied upon by the
appellant today is of the year 2025 and was inserted w.e.f. 01st September, 2025.
6. In my view, Section 50B has a relevance in adjudicating the issue of
jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the appeal back to
the learned District Judge for adjudication on all the issues of Section 50B,
including its applicability or non-applicability to the facts of the present case. The
learned District Judge will also adjudicate upon whether the said amendment, if
applicable, is prospective, retrospective or retroactive. This Court too would like
HMK 3 01. FA-700 to 703-2014.doc
to have the benefit of the view of the learned District Judge before it takes upon
itself the exercise of interpretating Section 50B in the present case. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order dated 27th June, 2013 is set aside and remanded to
the District Court at Pune to be adjudicated on all the issue of Section 50B.
7. In so far as, the issue on whether the action of the Charity Commissioner
was justified in law or not, the same would arise only on adjudication of the
applicability / non-applicability of Section 50B and its retrospectivity or
prospectivity or retroactivity. If the learned District Judge comes to a conclusion
that the provisions of Section 50B are not applicable in any manner whatsoever to
the facts of the present case, then in that case, the findings of the District Judge in
order dated 27th June, 2013 in so far as the action of the Charity Commissioner is
concerned will stand undisturbed and both the parties will be at liberty to
challenge the same if they so desire, before the appeal Court. This will avoid
repetition of adjudication on merits. Both the parties have agreed to this course of
action being adopted.
8. I once again make it clear that insofar as the issue of the action of Charity
Commissioner is concerned, the findings of the learned District Judge is not
disturbed by the present order and the same is kept open to be challenged by any
of the parties after the learned District Judge adjudicates upon Section 50B of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
9. One more reason for remanding the matter back is that the properties of the
respondents were declared as a Waqf property. The said notification was
challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 20 th October, 2022
has quashed the notification and directed the parties to appear before the Waqf
Board with respect to the properties of the respondent. This judgment was not
available to the learned District Judge, since the impugned order is dated 27 th June,
2013. Therefore, the learned District Judge should also consider the proceedings
HMK 4 01. FA-700 to 703-2014.doc
before the Waqf Board and the effect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on the
present proceedings.
10. In view of above, the impugned judgment and order is set aside to the
extent specified above and the matter is remanded to the Court of the District
Judge for adjudication on Section 50B.
11. The original proceedings were filed in the year 2007 before the District
Court and the District Court has disposed of the same in the year 2013. The
amendment has been brought on the statute book in the year 2025, therefore,
looking at the above dates, the learned District Judge is requested to hear the
parties and pass an order on the issue raised, as mentioned above on or before 30 th
June, 2026.
12. Both the parties are requested to co-operate with the District Court in the
early disposal of the issue raised, as mentioned above.
13. The learned counsel for the parties are requested to appear before the
learned District Judge with a copy of the present order on 29 th November, 2025 at
2.30 pm.
14. Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
