Bombay High Court

Dattatraya Yamaji Lokhande And Another vs Gorakh Tukaram Lokhande And Others on 9 September, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:23935
                                                1                    CRA.67-2024.odt


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2024
                                              WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4554 OF 2024
                                      IN CRA.NO.67 OF 2024

                     1.   Gorakh S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
                          Age-65 Years, Occu- Business and Agriculture,
                          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
                          Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     2.   Bhagwat S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
                          Died through his LRs.
                          Raju S/o Bhagwat Lokhande,
                          Age- 35 Years, Occu.- Govt. Service,
                          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
                          Ahmednagar. Dist.

                     3.   Sanjay S/o Kondiram Lokhande,
                          Age- 50 Years, Occu. Business and Agriculture,
                          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
                          Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     4.   Balasaheb S/o Shankar Lokhande,
                          Age- 48 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
                          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
                          Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     5.   Prakash S/o Madhukar Gadekar,
                          Age-38 Years, Occu. Business and Agriculture,
                          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
                          Dist. Ahmednagar.                   ...      Applicants

                                VERSUS

                     1.   The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar,
                          Shrirampur, Tal. Shrirampur,
                          Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     2.   Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs
                          through its Chief Executive Officer,
                          Panchakki, Aurangabad.
                          2                      CRA.67-2024.odt


3.   Dargah Dawal Malik (Rah),
     through its Mujawar,
     Shaikh Imam Badshah Shaikh Mujawar,
     Age-33 years, Occupation Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.   Kondiram S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
     Died through his L.R.
     4-A) Ramesh S/o Kondiram Lokhande,
           Age-58 years, Occu.-Agriculture,
           R/o. Takalibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
           Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.   Chandmal S/o Chunilal Gaud,
     Age-60 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

6.   Gorakah S/o Bhimrao Jadhav,
     Age-58 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

7.   Kerabapu S/o Pandharinath Magar,
     Age- 55 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.                    ... Respondents.

                         WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6911 OF 2024
                 IN CRA.NO.67 OF 2024

1.   Dattatraya Yamaji Lokhande,
     Age-59 Years, Occ- Agriculture,
     R/o-Taklibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.   Dnyaneshwar Jagannath Lokhande,
     Age- 57 Years, Occ-Agriculture,
     R/o- Taklibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.                ...         Applicants

           VERSUS
                           3                      CRA.67-2024.odt


1.   Gorakh S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
     Age-65 Years, Occu- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.   Kondiram S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
     Died through his L.R.
     4-A) Ramesh S/o Kondiram Lokhande,
           Age-58 years, Occu.-Agriculture,
           R/o. Takalibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
           Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.   Bhagwat S/o Tukaram Lokhande,
     Died through his LRs.

     3-A) Raju S/o Bhagwat Lokhande,
          Age- 35 Years, Occu.- Govt. Service,
          R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
          Ahmednagar. Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.   Sanjay S/o Kondiram Lokhande,
     Age- 50 Years, Occu. Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.   Balasaheb S/o Shankar Lokhande,
     Age- 48 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

6.   Chandmal S/o Chunilal Gaud,
     Age-60 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

7.   Gorakah S/o Bhimrao Jadhav,
     Age-58 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.

8.   Kerabapu S/o Pandharinath Magar,
     Age- 55 Years, Occu.- Business and Agriculture,
     R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.
                               4                       CRA.67-2024.odt


9.      Prakash S/o Madhukar Gadekar,
        Age-38 Years, Occu. Business and Agriculture,
        R/o. Takalibhan, Tal-Shrirampur,
        Dist. Ahmednagar.

10.     The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar,
        Shrirampur, Tal. Shrirampur,
        Dist. Ahmednagar..

11.     Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs
        through its Chief Executive Officer,
        Panchakki, Aurangabad.

12.     Dargah Dawal Malik (Rah),
        through its Mujawar,
        Shaikh Imam Badshah Shaikh Mujawar,
        Age-33 years, Occupation Agriculture,
        R/o. Takalibhan, Tal. Shrirampur,
        Dist. Ahmednagar.

                                 ...
     Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar.
           AGP for Respondent-State : Mr. D. B. Bhange.
      Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rameez M. Shaikh.
       Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. K. D. Bade-Patil.
                                 ...

                           CORAM :        SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                           RESERVED ON   : 03.09.2025
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 09.09.2025.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard both sides finally.

2. Applicants are questioning order dated 20.12.2023

passed below Exh.5 in Miscellaneous Application No.20 of

2017 declining to grant stay to the implementation of order

25.06.2012. Applicants are prosecuting Miscellaneous 5 CRA.67-2024.odt

Application No.20 of 2017, pending before Maharashtra State

Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad.

3. Respondent No.3 is a Dargah. Land Gut No.249 is a

Wakf property. The dispute pertains to 10 R. of land, part of

which is let out to the applicants. Applicants are in possession

of the same and have their houses. They claim to be the lessee

inducted by registered lease deed executed on 26.09.1949 at

the instance of Mutawalli. They are continuously in possession

though lease was initially for period of 20 years.

4. Respondent No.2/Board received complaint regarding

illegal occupation of the applicants. It conducted inquiry under

Section 54 of Wakf Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'Act').

By order dated 25.06.2012 applicants are directed to hand

over possession by removing the encroachment within 15 days.

Being aggrieved by the order eviction, applicants approached

Wakf Tribunal under Section 83 belatedly after four years and

11 months. Apprehending dispossession, application Exh.5 was

also submitted. After contest, the same was rejected by the

impugned order.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Jahagirdar submits that impugned

order is perverse because the judgment and decree dated 6 CRA.67-2024.odt

21.11.2001 passed by competent Civil Court in Regular Civil

Suit No.181 of 1998, which is further confirmed in Regular

Civil Appeal No.47 of 2002 is overlooked. It is further

submitted that applicants are in lawful possession of the

disputed property on the strength of registered lease deed and

they cannot be termed as encroachers. It is submitted that if

they are dispossessed, then the proceedings before the Tribunal

would be infructuous.

6. Learned counsel further submits that order passed by

Sub Divisional Officer on 27.06.2022, upon which, reliance is

placed by the respondents is without jurisdiction. It is

submitted that when the applicants were inducted, there was

no prohibition for letting out the Wakf property for any specific

time period. It is submitted that prima facie case is made out

and balance of convenience is in their favour.

7. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bade Patil repels the

submissions on the basis of affidavit-in-reply. He would submit

that present revision application is not tenable and liable to be

rejected. It is submitted that applicants have suppressed

material facts. Order passed by Division Bench in Writ Petition

No.7636 of 2019, order of Sub Divisional Officer dated

27.06.2022 and order dated 14.06.2024 in Writ Petition 7 CRA.67-2024.odt

No.5696 of 2024 are suppressed. It is submitted that there was

no provision for letting out the property for 20 years. The lease

deed is void and possession is illegal. It is further submitted

that applicants have taken disadvantage of interim relief

granted by the Vacation Court on 28.05.2024 and continued to

be in possession. It is further submitted that lease deed is

against the Wakf Properties Lease Rules, 2014.

8. Learned counsel Mr. Shaikh appearing for respondent

No.2/Board adopts the submissions of the respondents.

Learned AGP appearing for respondent No.1/State also adopts

the submissions.

9. I have considered rival submissions of the parties.

Applicants have filed Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2017

under Section 83 of the Act challenging order dated

25.06.2012 passed by respondent No.2/Board under Section

54(3) of the Act. It transpires from record that there is delay

of four years and eleven months in approaching the Tribunal

which has not been condoned yet. Apprehending dispossession,

application Exh.5 is pressed into service which is rejected by

the impugned order. The possession is protected by this Court

vide order dated 28.05.2024 when it was represented that 8 CRA.67-2024.odt

notices dated 24.05.2024 were issued to the applicants for

vacating the premises.

10. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents for

maintainability of the revision having being filed against

interlocutory order. A reliance is placed on the judgment of

Supreme Court in Tek Singh Vs. Shashi Verma and another,

Civil Appeal No.1416 of 2019, in which, it is laid down that

revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is not maintainable against

interlocutory order. The matter before the Apex Court was

arising out of suit filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act

and it was not in the context of any Wakf property or the Wakf

Act of 1955. The ratio cannot be made applicable to the

present case. Learned counsel for the applicants is right in

contending that revision is the only remedy by implication of

Section 83(9) and proviso thereto. A Tribunal has all powers

of Civil Court. I am of the considered view that present

revision is maintainable.

11. There is no dispute that order passed by the

respondent/Board on 25.06.2012 is sought to be challenged

after four years by filing application No.20 of 2017 before the

Tribunal. The delay is yet to be condoned. From 2017 till this

date, no endeavour has been made by the parties to request 9 CRA.67-2024.odt

the Tribunal to consider the condonation of delay. The Tribunal

also dealt with application Exh.5 without hearing parties on

condonation of delay. The Tribunal does not get jurisdiction to

entertain the application without condoning the delay. The

Tribunal should have peremptorily decided the issue of delay.

12. Applicants are claiming to be lessee of respondent No.3

on the strength of lease deed dated 26.09.1949, which was for

20 years. Already respondent No.2/Board conducted inquiry

under Section 54(3) of the Act and directed them to vacate the

premises. Besides that the directions issued by Division Bench

in Writ Petition No.7636 of 2019 vide order dated 27.04.2022

are not disclosed. Applicants themselves had filed the said

petition and solicited the orders. In pursuance of those orders,

further inquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Officer. The

applicants are held to be encroachers and they were directed to

remove the encroachment by invoking powers under Section

55(1) vide order dated 27.06.2022 which is also not disclosed.

There is substance in the submissions of the respondents that

applicants have suppressed material facts from this Court.

They are enjoying the interim relief which was secured during

vacation.

10 CRA.67-2024.odt

13. Learned counsel for the applicants is unable to satisfy

this Court as to how the applicants are continued in possession

after expiry of lease period. Even if some benefits are given to

them for having being inducted in the premises vide registered

lease deed, their further continuation appears to be prima facie

illegal. It is further endorsed by detail inquiry and order

passed by Sub Divisional Officer on 27.06.2022. I do not find

prima facie case in favour of the applicants.

14. Applicants are banking on the judgment passed by Civil

Court in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 1998. It is confirmed by

Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.47 of 2002. But,

the judgments would show their possession. They do not

certify them to be lawful tenant. There is nothing on record to

suggest that they are paying rent. I am not inclined to give any

benefit to the applicants only on the basis of continuous

possession.

15. Parties have raised contentious issues regarding validity

of the lease and the authority to let out the property for more

than three years. It is appropriate for the Tribunal to examine

those issues, if the delay is condoned. It is not necessary to

examine purport of Rule 4 of the Wakf Properties Lease Rules,

2014 and the purport of judgment referred by the applicants in 11 CRA.67-2024.odt

the matter of Brigadier K. K. Verma and another Vs. Naraindas

C. Malkani. This aspect needs to be gone into in a full-fledged

inquiry.

16. I do not find any perversity or material irregularity in

the impugned order. It is necessary to request the Tribunal to

consider issue of delay peremptorily. The applicants are guilty

of lapses and they went on representing this Court that they

have eminent threats of dispossession. Tribunal is justified in

refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in their favour.

(i) Civil Revision Application is rejected.

(ii) Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad is

requested to consider issue of condonation of

delay peremptorily, as early as possible and not

more than one (1) month from today.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ...

vmk/-

17. After pronouncement of judgment, learned counsel for

the applicants prays for continuation of interim relief by way of

protection to their possession. It is contended that the 12 CRA.67-2024.odt

possession is being protected since 28.05.2024 and applicants

have residential houses in the suit premises.

18. Request is opposed by the learned counsel Mr. Bade Patil

for the respondent. It is contended that the delay is yet to be

condoned in the substantive proceedings. Applicants are

enjoying their possession, which is unauthorized. It is further

contended that similarly situated persons have vacated their