1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3757 OF 2009 Gopinath s/o Bamnaji Jadhav, R/o-Post Assarjan, Tq. & Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs Through Chief Executive Officer, M.S.B.W. Panchakki, Aurangabad, 3) Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Panchakki, Aurangabad, 4) M/s. Shreyas Infrastructures, Through its Partner, Shrikant Gopaldas Khatod, R/o-134, Bhavani Peth, Subhash Chowk, Jalgaon, 5) Dr. Gurumukhdas Mehrumal Jagwani, R/o-Jaynagar, Jalgaon, 6) Sapan Susheelkumar Zunzunwala, R/o-Anand Nagar, Ringroad, Jalgaon, 2 7) Sunil Gangabisan Dayma, R/o-Hanuman Takdi, Nanded, 8) Shaligram Shriram Mote, R/o-As above. 9) Ahmed Hamidoddin Khali s/o Shah Mohammed Taher, R/o-Gadipura, Nanded, Tq. & Dist-Nanded, 10) Mohammed Yusuffuddin s/o Shah Mohammed Taher, R/o-As above, 11) Mohammed Athar s/o Shah Mohammed Taher, R/o-As above, 12) Mohammed Sajid s/o Mohammed Zahed @ Johar, R/o-As above. 13) Mohammed Maajed s/o Mohammed Hamid, R/o-As above, 14) Mohammed Sallauddin Salim s/o Ahmed Hamiduddin, R/o-As above. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.G.D. Shaikh Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.S.K. Tambe A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.G.R. Syed Advocate h/f. Mr. S.A.G. Quereshi Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. S.P. Shah Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 8. Mr.S.S. Kazi Advocate for Respondent Nos. 9 to 14. ... 3 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner prays for following substantive relief as per prayer clause (C): "(C) Respondent no.2 and 3 may kindly be ordered and directed to take necessary legal action as per provisions of law for restoration of land which is illegal transferred in the name of respondent no.4 to 8 on the basis of illegal resolution no.48 dated 19/6/2006, order of Chairman dated 21/6/2006 and order dated 26/6/2006 of respondent no.3 as per order of State Government dated 15/3/2007 by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ as per law." 4 3. The Petitioner's prayer is based on communication dated 15th March, 2007 - Exhibit E wherein the State Government, Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, issued a communication to the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra State Wakf Board. The Petitioner's claim to be hereditary tenant of the subject lands which were exchanged by the Wakf Board under resolution and executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The Petitioner therefore prays that in view of communication/ order issued by the Government - Exhibit E, all these transactions, exchange deeds, transfer orders are to be declared null and void and the lands should be transferred to the Petitioner by the Wakf Board. 4. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 9 to 13 and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Petition. The counsel submits that the Petitioner has efficacious alternate statutory remedies in view of provisions of Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 5. The learned senior counsel Mr. P.M. Shah has drawn 5 our attention to the Judgment in the matter of Salam Khan and etc. vs. T.N. Wakf Board, Chennai and others, reported in AIR 2005 Madras, Page No.241 in support of the submissions that the issue raised by the Petitioner pertains to Wakf property and therefore the Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is empowered to deal with the issue. In the matter of this nature, according to the counsel, Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be entertained. 6. We have perused the Judgment cited supra. In the facts of the case, considering the provisions of Act of 1995 and the Judgment cited supra, we find that the Petitioner has alternate remedies available in law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 approached this Court against the order passed by the State Government - Exhibit E in Writ Petition No.4258 of 2007, which is admitted and order of interim relief is passed by the Court in their favour. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shaha does not dispute this position and it was submitted that Writ Petition No.4258 of 2007 was admitted by this Court filed by Respondent 6 Nos. 4 to 8 herein and interim relief was granted in favour of the Respondents. 7. We clarify that in case the Petitioner chooses to resort to alternate statutory remedy available to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 on the plea of Petitioner's claiming hereditary tenancy, then the order of interim relief passed by this Court in the Writ Petition referred above, would not come in his way to establish his claim. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. 8. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV09/wp3757.09