In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court dismissed the revision applications of Civil Revision Application No.3 of 2021 and No. 4 of 2021, emphasized the significance of upholding rights established by prior orders and delineated the limitations on Wakf Board’s jurisdiction in specific matters.
Sayyed Moinuddin and Sayyed Ejazuddin, the applicants, challenged the orders of the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad, regarding a survey challenging them to be time-barred, inactive, null, and void, and not binding on their rights.
The central issue pertained to the validity and enforceability of the orders issued by the chief executive officer of the Wakf board and their impact on the rights of the applicants.
The Court dismissed both revision applications, affirming the maintainability of the proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 54(4) of the Act. The Court underscored that the Tenacy Tribunal’s unchallenged orders in favour of the plaintiff tenant could not be disturbed by the Wakf Board within its jurisdiction.
The Court referred to the precedents laid down in Abdul Qayyum v. Additional Collector, Nanded: 2013(1) and Sunil Vasudeo Nirgude and others v. Hasan Khan S/o Maheboob Khan and anr. Civil Revision Application No. 158 of 2012, and upheld the validity of the proceedings before the Tribunal under the Section 54(4) of the Act, affirming for it to remain undisturbed by the Wakf board in its jurisdiction.
CASE NAME:
SAYYED MOINUDDIN SAYYED SAIFODDIN AND ANOTHER Vs PRATAPSINGH NURSING KAKARWAL AND ANOTHER CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2021 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2021 2024:BHC-AUG:3110
NAME: Sreenishanka Vadiraj, 6th sem, BBA-LLB(Hons.)PES University, Bangalore, Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
