Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Board Of Waqfs Thr Its ... vs Huseini Mission Trust Thr Its Trustee Mr ... on 24 November, 2025
(1) fa2751.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2751 OF 2025
SHIRIN MUNIR MERCHANT
VERSUS
THE DIAMOND JUBILEE TRUST BEARING THRU ITS TRUSTEES MR. ISMAIL
BADRUDDIN SONAWALLA AND OTHERS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11587 OF 2025 IN FA/2751/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2755 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11422 OF 2025 IN FA/2755/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2756 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11411 OF 2025 IN FA/2765/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11410 OF 2025 IN FA/2763/2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11418 OF 2025 IN FA/2756/2025
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2763 OF 2025
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2765 OF 2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2757 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11416 OF 2025 IN FA/2757/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2758 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12085 OF 2025 IN FA/2758/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2759 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11409 OF 2025 IN FA/2759/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2760 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11417 OF 2025 IN FA/2760/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2761 OF 2025
(2) fa2751.25
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11414 OF 2025 IN FA/2761/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2762 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11420 OF 2025 IN FA/2762/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12084 OF 2025 IN FA/2764/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2766 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11331 OF 2025 IN FA/2766/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2767 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11419 OF 2025 IN FA/2767/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2768 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11421 OF 2025 IN FA/2768/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2769 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11412 OF 2025 IN FA/2769/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2770 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11415 OF 2025 IN FA/2770/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2771 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11413 OF 2025 IN FA/2771/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2825 OF 2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2735 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11327 OF 2025 IN FA/2735/2025
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2734 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8726 OF 2025 IN FA/2734/2025
(3) fa2751.25
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11181 OF 2025 IN FA/2734/2025
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2752 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11586 OF 2025 IN FA/2752/2025
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat and Mr.
Ishwar Ahuja i/b. Mr. N.E. Deshmukh and Mr. Yusuf Baugwala, Mr. Mohiyuddin Y.
Baugwala and Mr. Khan Abdul Hakeem, Mr. S.V. Advant Advocates for the
respective appellants.
Mr. Sageer A. Khan and Mr. G.D. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 8.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 13.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.11.2025
O R D E R :
-
01. This group of appeals is filed under Section 83 (9) of the
Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development
Act, 1995, challenging judgment and orders passed by the learned
Chairman and Member of the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad (Chh.
Sambhajinagar). Initially, under the Waqf Act, prior to amendment,
remedy provided was of filing of revision against the judgment and order.
By way of the amendment, now remedy of appeal is provided.
02. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents in the
First Appeals. There is delay caused in filing the suit and an application
was filed for condonation of delay. Appeal is therefore filed challenging
order passed by the Waqf Tribunal condoning the delay. The suit before
(4) fa2751.25
the Waqf Tribunal was filed in respect of property situated in Pune
district. It is the Principal Seat at Bombay, which has jurisdiction and
this Bench at Aurangabad will have no jurisdiction. This objection is
raised in view of Chapter XXXI, Rules (1), (2) and (3) of the Appellate
Side Rules. All these rules deal with jurisdiction of the Principal Seat and
respective Benches. Rule (3) is in respect of territorial jurisdiction of this
Bench to decide all these appeals, applications, writ petitions under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which provide that such
appeals, applications and writ petitions arising out of and from the
districts under the jurisdiction of this Bench shall be filed before this
Bench. For the purpose of convenience, said Chapter XXXI and Rules 3 is
reproduced below :-
"CHAPTER XXXI
[PRESENTATION OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF BOMBAY AT THE PRINCIPAL SEAT, ITS BENCHES AND
AT GOA]
xxxxxxx
3. All appeals, applications, references, petitions including petitions for
exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, arising in the State of Goa, which lie to the High Court at Bombay,
shall be presented to the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa and
shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at High Court of Bombay at
Goa;
xxxxxxx"
03. Learned Advocate Mr. Sagheer Khan appearing for the
(5) fa2751.25
respondents by relying upon the Rules submits that in view of these
Rules, it is only the respective Bench, within whose jurisdiction the
property is situated or Mutawali resides will have jurisdiction and for that
purpose also he relies upon sub-section (3) of Section 83 of the Waqf
Act, which gives jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This sub-section (7) in the
present case is not very material as it deals with the jurisdiction of the
Waqf Tribunal, where there are more than one Waqf Tribunal for the
State. In the present case, the question does not arise as there is only
one Waqf Tribunal for the entire State of Maharashtra. The suits in
respect of properties situated under the territorial jurisdiction of the
Principal Seat or any of the Benches are maintainable in the Waqf
Tribunal at Aurangabad. He further submits that proceeding under
section 83(3) of the Waqf Act is a departure from the general rule of
place of order suing under the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code. He also submits that reading of sub-section (3) of
section 83 of the Waqf Act shows that the term of cause of action is align
to the Waqf Act.
04. This Court has already dealt with this issue, when revisions
were held maintainable against judgment and order passed by the Waqf
Tribunal at Aurangabad, when this Court had occasion to decide the
(6) fa2751.25
question. The revisions were regularly filed and were being entertained
by this Court. In one such revision, question was raised about
jurisdiction and in that view this Court was called upon to decide the
issue of jurisdiction. So far as revision is concerned, in the present case
learned Advocate Mr. Khan submits that the appeal needs to be
considered separately from the Revision as under Revision the
jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court even suo-moto. The
power is in the nature of superintendence, akin to the power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and thus it was held that
this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain revisions. His
submission is that since the appeal is continuation of suit and is
necessarily to be filed by the parties to the proceedings, parties do not
have choice to chose forum of their choice and therefore the appeal
needs to be filed only before the Principal Seat or respective Benches
where the property is situated and it is situs of the property that will
decide the territorial jurisdiction. He relies upon following judgments :-
i) Volvo Group of India Pvt. Ltd. formerly known as Volvo Buses
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine
Bom 2897.
ii) Adam A. Jumma Vs. Guddu S. Malha, 2023(3) Mh.L.J. 494.
iii) Dixons Cargo Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Customs, Goa, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3411.
(7) fa2751.25
iv) State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Shamrao Puranik & Ors., (1982)
3 SCC 519.
v) Pandit Gulam Dastgir Vs. Ashfaq Ul Haque Khan & Ors., AIROnline
2019 Bom 2023.
vi) Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel Vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust & Ors.,
2006(1) Mh.L.J. 184.
vii) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2004) 6
SCC 254.
05. Learned Advocate Mr. Prathamesh Kamat on behalf of the
respective appellants in the First Appeals mainly argued for the
appellants in all these appeals. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Deshmukh
addressed on behalf of the respective appellants in First Appeals.
Learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Advant for the respective appellant also
addressed this Court supporting that this Court has jurisdiction to
entertain appeal. Mr. Kamat relied upon Chapter XXIV-A of the Bombay
High Court Appellate Side Rules. Their arguments are adopted by other
learned learned Advocates appearing for the appellants in respective
appeals.
06. It is argued that the appeals are arising out of the orders
passed by the Waqf Tribunal situated at Aurangabad. It is the order
impugned that will give cause of action to file an appeal. It is submitted
that there is only one Waqf Board for the entire State of Maharashtra and
(8) fa2751.25
that is situated in Aurangabad. All the record is maintained at
Aurangabad. The orders passed by actions taken by the Board are
challenged before the Waqf Tribunal and in that view it is this Bench,
which has the jurisdiction. Learned Advocate for the appellants relied
upon various judgments. The main submissions are that the orders are
passed at Aurangabad. It is the action which is under challenge that will
give jurisdiction and not the place where the property is situated. In the
appeal the Court is called upon to adjudicate upon the the actions/orders
under challenge and not on the dispute. It is also submission that the
litigant is dominus litis and therefore it is his choice of the forum when
jurisdiction arises at two different places. This is different than hunting
of the forum. He submits that no reliance can be placed on the
judgments relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Sagheer Khan, as those
are under different statutes and not under the general statute and under
the Waqf Act.
07. Learned Advocate Mr. Kamat heavily relied upon judgment in
the cases of :-
i) Kishore Rungta Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 195.
ii) Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online
Bom. 2897.
iii) J.M. Baxi & Co. Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs & ors., 2002(4)
(9) fa2751.25
Mh.L.J. 823.
08. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. R.S. Deshmukh also addressed the
Court supporting arguments of Mr. Kamat. Learned Advocate Mr. Advant
also relies upon judgment in the case of Haji Abdul Razak [supra].
09. For that purpose this Court feels that it is necessary to
reproduce relevant provisions from the Waqf Act :-
83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc.--
(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of
any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or waqf property,
eviction of a tenant or determination of rights and obligations of the
lessor and the lessee of such property, under this Act and define the local
limits and jurisdiction of such Tribunals.
xxxxxx
(3) Where any application made under sub-section (1) relates to any waqf
property which falls within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of two or
more Tribunals, such application may be made to the Tribunal within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the mutawalli or any one of the
mutawallis of the waqf actually and voluntarily resides, carries on
business or personally works for gain, and, where any such application is
made to the Tribunal aforesaid, the other Tribunal or Tribunals having
jurisdiction shall not entertain any application for the determination of
such dispute, question or other matter:
Provided that the State Government may, if it is of opinion that it
is expedient in the interest of the waqf or any other person interested in
the waqf or the waqf property to transfer such application to any other
Tribunal having jurisdiction for the determination of the dispute, question
or other matter relating to such waqf or waqf property, transfer such
application to any other Tribunal having jurisdiction, and, on such transfer,
the Tribunal to which the application is so transferred shall deal with the
application from the stage which was reached before the Tribunal from
which the application has been so transferred, except where the Tribunal
is of opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to deal with the
application afresh.
( 10 ) fa2751.25
xxxxxx
(5) The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the
same powers as may be exercised by a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, or executing a decree or
order.
xxxxxx
(7) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the
parties to the application and itshall have the force of a decree made by a
civil court.
xxxxxx
(9) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, may appeal to
the High Court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of
the order of the Tribunal:
Provided that a High Court may, on its own motion or on the
application of the Board or any person aggrieved, call for and examine the
records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been
determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm,
reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order as it may
think fit."
10. From these provisions, it is seen that there is only one
Tribunal for the entire State of Maharashtra. No doubt, in view of section
83(1), the State has power to establish as many Tribunals as it may
deem fit for determination of any dispute, question or other matter
relating to Waqf or Waqf property. As per sub-section (5), the Tribunal is
deemed to be a Civil Court having powers of Civil Court under Civil
Procedure Code for trying suits. In sub-section (9) of Section 83, the
word used is only "may appeal to the High Court". It is not specified as
( 11 ) fa2751.25
to before which High Court or if there are Benches, before which Bench
the appeal would lie. Since the same is not specifically provided, present
objection is raised, in view of Rule (2) of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay
High Court Appellate Sides Rules. This Rule gives jurisdiction in respect
of appeals, applications, revisions, petitions under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India arising in the judicial districts specified
therein.
11. In the case of Volvo [supra], it was a group of petitions
arising from the orders passed by the Revisionary Authority under the
Customs Act. In the said five petitions, out of six petitions, were in
respect of orders passed by the Authority situated outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Mumbai, however, the Revisionary
Authority was situated within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat. Therein,
objection was raised that the Principal Seat will have no jurisdiction. It
was held that the Revisionary Authority is situated in Mumbai and
therefore Principal Seat at Mumbai will have jurisdiction.
12. In the case of Adam A. Jumma [supra], Second Appeal
was filed in the High Court at Bombay, challenging Appellate Tribunal's
order under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (16 of
( 12 ) fa2751.25
2016). In the said case, dispute arose in respect of a project in Goa.
The parties approached the forum at Goa. The order passed by the
Regional Forum was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under RERA
Act. This Court considered section 58 of the Act, providing appeal to the
High Court. Explanation to Section 58 is reproduced as under :-
"Explanation - The expression "High Court" means the High Court of a
State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated."
. The wording of explanation shows High Court means the High
Court of a State or Union territory where the real estate project is
situated.
13. Said judgment is under the RERA Act. The jurisdiction to
decide the appeal under section 58 is specifically provided to the High
Court, where the real estate project is situated. There is no manner of
doubt that when the legislature provides forum in specific and
unambiguous words, there cannot be any doubt about the jurisdiction.
In the present case, the wording of the sub-section (9) of the Waqf Act
only used the word 'High Court'. There is nothing to show that the High
Court is specified by the legislature.
( 13 ) fa2751.25
14. Further reliance is placed on Dixons Cargo [supra]. There
appeals were filed under section 130 of the Customs Act and section 35G
of the Central Excise Act from the orders of Tribunal at Mumbai. In the
said case, the dispute had arisen in respect of excisable goods produced
at Nagpur. The original proceeding was decided by the Authority at
Nagpur and in that view, it was held that the appeal against the order
would lie before the Bench at Nagpur.
15. In the case of Narayan Shamrao Puranik [supra], the
Hon'ble Apex Court considered the object, need, convenience etc. of the
region of Marathwada and held that establishment of the Bench at
Aurangabad is perfectly legal.
16. In the case of Pandit Gulam Gastgir [supra], revision
arose out of an order passed by the Waqf Tribunal at Aurangabad. By
considering various judgments, this Court held that it is the Aurangabad
Bench, which has jurisdiction. Mr. Khan pointed out this judgment only
for the purpose that this judgment is in respect of revision and not
appeal.
17. In the case of Haji Abdul Razak [supra], an order passed
( 14 ) fa2751.25
by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune was challenged by
filing Writ Petition at Principal Seat. Civil Applications were filed
challenging order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune,
refusing permissions to alienate immovable properties of the trust, under
section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. In the Civil Applications, a
prayer was made for return of the writ petitions for presenting those
before the Aurangabad Bench. It was a case that the properties in
respect of which the application before the Joint Charity Commissioner
was filed were located at Ahilyanagar within territorial jurisdiction of
Aurangabad Bench. Since the Joint Charity Commissioner for the area of
Ahmednagar was at Pune, the applications under section 36 were filed at
Pune. The Court considered that the order is passed at Pune within
ordinary jurisdiction of the Appellate Side of the Principal Seat at
Bombay. The objections came to be overruled.
18. Both the parties have addressed relying on the case of
Kusum Ingots [supra]. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was
considering jurisdiction for the purpose of petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. There validity of the legislation was challenged
in the High Court at Delhi, questioning the vires of the Indian Companies
Act by filing Writ Petition before Delhi High Court. In the said petition,
( 15 ) fa2751.25
the company had obtained loan from Bhopal Branch of State Bank of
India. Notice was issued for repayment of loan from Bhopal under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act. Delhi High Court refused to entertain the petition
on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The matter was thus carried to
the Hon'ble Apex Court with an argument that since the vires of the Act
is under challenge, which is enacted by the legislation in Delhi, it is the
Delhi High Court which has jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court by
considering various judgments held that the Writ Petition would lie before
the High Court, where an order is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an
executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a
part of cause of action arises at that place. It is also held that when an
Authority is situated at one place and the Appellate Authority is situated
at another place, the Writ Petition would be maintainable at both the
places holding that the order of the Appellate Authority constitutes part
of cause of action.
19. In the case of Kishore Rungta [supra] an order was passed
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, which was challenged before the
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The petitioner therein
challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court at
( 16 ) fa2751.25
Mumbai. The Division Bench on preliminary objection as to the
jurisdiction, held that the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Jaipur merged into the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai i.e. Appellate Tribunal. The Court in Jaipur would have no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition and it is the Court in Mumbai that
would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
20. In the case of J.M. Baxi and Co. Vs. Deputy Collector of
Customs & Ors., 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 823, the Division Bench of this
Court was dealing with Writ Petition challenging an order passed under
the Customs Act. The Dy. Collector of Customs, Kandla (Gujarat) had
imposed penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act for loss of cargo.
Said order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals),
Mumbai. There again challenge was raised to the jurisdiction. This Court
held that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal also forms cause of
action and therefore the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the Writ Petition.
21. In the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,
Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 3905, an order of the
Appellate Tribunal i.e. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was passed having
( 17 ) fa2751.25
jurisdiction over more than one State. It was held that in such cases,
the appeal would lie against every decision of the Appellate Tribunal only
before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer, who
passed the assessment order was situated.
22. In the case of Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and
Anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others,
(2020) 19 SCC 380, it is held that the Writ Petition would be
maintainable depending upon the place where the Regional authority or
the Tribunal or the Court of first instance is situated. In the said case,
the Regional Authority passed the order was situated in Calcutta. The
Appellate Tribunal was situated at Delhi. It was held that the Calcutta
High Court has territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue.
23. Coming to the facts of the present case and the ratio in the
judgments, this Court finds that since the impugned orders are passed
by the Waqf Tribunal at Aurangabad, having original jurisdiction, is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, it is difficult to
sustain the objection of the respondents. It is clear that the cause of
action would arise at both the places where the original authority has
passed order or where the Appellate Authority has passed order in view
( 18 ) fa2751.25
of judgment in the case of Kishor Ingots [supra]. In the case of
Calcutta Gujarati Education Society [supra], it was held that the
jurisdiction would be decided considering the passing of the order by the
original authority. In the present case the original authority itself is Waqf
Tribunal, where the order passed by Waqf Board also happens to be
within territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. It is, therefore, this Bench,
which will have the jurisdiction.
24. In view of the above discussions, the preliminary objection
raised cannot be sustained. These appeals are rightly filed in this Court
at Aurangabad. Since the objection was raised to the jurisdiction, this
Court has not dealt with any of the appeals on merit.
25. Office to act accordingly. Place these appeals on Board dated
02.12.2025.
26. Interim relief to continue till next date.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2025/Nov25/fa2751.25
