Saiyad Ikbal Ahmad vs Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board
2023 Latest Caselaw 4480 MP

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
                                          SECOND APPEAL No. 1200 of 2016

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    SAIYAD IKBAL AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS:-
                                1(a) MRS. ABIDA SULTAN, W/O LATE SAIYAD
                                IKBAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
                                1(b) MS. SULMA IQBAL D/O LATE SAIYAD IKBAL
                                AHMAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
                                1(c) SYED SHAKEEL AHMAD S/O LATE SAIYAD
                                IKBAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
                                1(d) MISS. RABIA SHARIQ D/O LATE SAIYAD
                                IKBAL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
                                ALL R/O 62, TAJ BUILDING, BUDHWARA
                                CHOURAHA, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                          2.    SAIYAD SULTAN AHMAD S/O LATE RASOOL
                                AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O TAJ DAIRY
                                BUILDING, BUDHWARA CHOURAHA BHOPAL
                                (M.P.)

                          3.    SAIYAD TUFAIL AHMAD S/O LATE RASOOL
                                AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O TAJ DAIRY
                                BUILDING, BUDHWARA CHOURAHA BHOPAL
                                (M.P.)

                          4.    SAIYAD MOHAMMAD AHMAD S/O LATE RASOOL
                                AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O TAJ DAIRY
                                BUILDING, BUDHWARA CHOURAHA BHOPAL
                                (M.P.)

                          5.    KUM SHAHEEDA KHATOON (NOW DEAD) D/O
                                LATE RASOOL AHMAD R/O TAJ DAIRY BUILDING,
                                BUDHWARA CHOURAHA, BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                                                             .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    MADHYA PRADESH WAQF BOARD THROUGH
                                EXECUTIVE OFFICER NEAR TAJUL MASJID
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 3/23/2023
11:58:35 AM
                                                              2

                          2.    PRESIDENT, SAHEBJADA NADIR RASHEED S/O
                                LATE RASHIDUJJAFAR KHAN WAQF UBEDULLA
                                KHAN SCHOLARSHIP NEAR TAJUL MASJID R/O
                                SHYAMLA KOTHI, SHYAMLA HILLS (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS


                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2016 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the

Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal in civil appeal no.70/2015, affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2014 passed by 5th Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in civil suit no.36-A/2011, whereby learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction holding them to be tenants in the suit premises.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree of eviction previously passed against the appellants was held to be unexecutable vide order dated 24.03.1992 (Ex.D/7) on account of deposit of entire rent by the appellants and thereafter no action of dispossession has been taken by the respondents, therefore, the plaintiffs/appellants being in continuous and uninterrupted possession in the suit premises for more than 12 years, have acquired title by adverse possession. He further submits that the respondents had no right to issue notice under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 treating the appellants to be encroachers in the suit premises. With these submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 3/23/2023 11:58:35 AM

4. Learned both the Courts below taking into consideration the previous litigation ended vide order dated 24.03.1992 (Ex.D/7) held the appellants to be tenants in the suit premises and negatived the plea of adverse possession taken by the appellants/plaintiffs. After perusal of the entire record, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by learned Courts below in respect of plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiffs/appellants.

5. So far as the argument in respect of issuance of notice by the respondents under Section 54 of the Wakf Act is concerned, the learned Courts below have rightly observed that it is yet to be adjudicated as to whether the plaintiffs are encroachers or not. In my considered opinion, the status of the plaintiffs to be encroachers or not, can only be seen in the proceedings of eviction, if initiated by the respondents in accordance with law.

6. Resultantly, having found no involvement of substantial question of law, this second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to the costs.

7. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 3/23/2023 11:58:35 AM