( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 836 OF 1991 1. Jalalkhan s/o Hussainkhan, R/o Village Delub, Tq. Nanded, District Nanded. 2. Sahebrao s/o Kashiram Dhumal, R/o as above. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The (Atiyat), Collector, Nanded. 3. Deputy Collector (Atiyat), Nanded. 4. The Marathwada Wakf Board, through District Wakf Officer, Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Kazi, advocate for respondent No. 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 20th January, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge ( 2 ) judgement and order rendered by the Collector (Atiyat), Nanded in proceedings of appeal No. 89-G.B.- Desk-3/Charity/Atiyat/Kar-18/89. Both the petitioners had preferred joint appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 06-08-1989 rendered by the Dy. Collector (Atiyat), Nanded. The Dy. Collector (Atiyat) held that land survey No. 116 (Gat No. 221) situated at village Delup-Bk. was a service inam land dedicated for services of Mulla Mosque, Nanded and the same was illegally and unauthorizedly alienated by the Mutwalli in favour of the petitioners. He, had, therefore, ordered attachment of the land and also giving the same for cultivation on Ek Sala Lavni basis. By the impugned order, the Collector (Atiyat) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and thereby confirmed the said order of the Dy. Collector (Atiyat) whereby the attachment of the land and giving the same on annual cultivation basis was confirmed. 2. The petitioners alleged that they are purchasers of the land in question. They further alleged that the land Survey No. 116 could not have been ( 3 ) regarded as the service inam land. They further alleged that there was no basis to assume that the land Survey No. 116 was purchased by the Mutawalli by name Mulla Dhasu by utilizing the amount of compensation received in respect of acquired land Survey No. 106. The petitioners have come out with a case that the land Survey No. 106 also was not the service inam land and, therefore, the inferences drawn by the Dy. Collector (Atiyat) and the Collector (Atiyat) are illogical and unsustainable. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is important to notice that lands Survey No. 159 and 106 situated at village Degaon-Bk and Survey No. 89 were granted under a Muntakhab issued by the then Ruler in 1302 Hizri. The Collector (Atiyat) dealt with another appeal No. 89-GB-D-3/Dharm-17/89 relating to similar subject. Copy of the judgement (Exh-B) would make it clear that the same Collector gave finding that the land bearing Survey No. 89 was granted for “Mouzami” service and, therefore, it was not a service inam, but ( 4 ) was to be treated as “Madad-mash” inam. In other words, it was held that land Survey No. 89 was the inam granted for community services. The Collector held that said land Survey No. 89 was non-service inam land and, therefore, the possession of the said land was directed to be retained by the appellant therein. That appellant also is a purchaser. What emerges from the reasoning recorded by the same Collector in the impugned judgement and order is that though land Survey No. 106 was also granted for “Mouzami” service, yet, it was regarded as the service inam land. Apparently, the same authority has taken different view in two matters arising out of identical fact situation. It is difficult to concise the findings of the Collector (Atiyat) rendered in the context of the two appeals which have been decided by him on 05-10-1990 and 31-12-1990, respectively. There is hardly any evidence to assume that the land Survey No. 116 was purchased by utilizing the compensation amount received from the Government in the context of the acquisition of land Survey No. 106 which was allegedly the service inam land. Basically, it was necessary to examine and determine as to whether land ( 5 ) Survey No. 106 was a service inam land and, therefore, further in-alienable. That issue was not duly addressed on basis of material and that there appears prima facie dichotomy between the two decisions of the same Collector, which were rendered on different dates i.e. 05-10-1990 and 31-12-1990. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, it is necessary to clarify the anomalous position by remanding the matter to the Collector (Atiyat). Hence, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector (Atiyat) for afresh hearing, consideration of the material and decision on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector (Atiyat), Nanded on 5th April, 2010. The Collector (Atiyat) to maintain status quo position till the final decision is rendered and shall expedite hearing of the appeal after appearance of the parties on the given date. He shall complete hearing within period of eight months as far as possible. The change of nomenclature of parties also may be considered as now the Marathwada Wakf Board is no ( 6 ) more in existence and Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs has taken over. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp836-91