1 C.R.A. No.49/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2011 Nemulal s/o Maruti Bhandwale & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The District Wakf Officer & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for the applicants Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri M.B.W. Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 2nd August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 3.2.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in Application No.57/2010, which was filed by the applicants herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that, the original Inamdar has entered into lease agreement with the applicants herein for 99 years. For that, the Marathwada Wakf Board has granted the sanction. Therefore, the applicants cannot be said to be encroachers on the land in 2 C.R.A. No.49/2011 question. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, this agreement was legally enforceable and it was for 99 years, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board was not correct in holding that the applicants are encroachers. He further submits that, the said agreement being entered between Inamdar and the applicants, was legally enforceable. Therefore, he submits that, this Court may entertain this Civil Revision Application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would submit that, in view of provisions of Section 56 in Old Act and provisions of Wakf Act, 1995, the land leased or sub-leased for any period exceeding three years for any immovable property, which is Wakf property, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of Wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. From the perusal of the judgment impugned in this Civil Revision Application, in my opinion, the Tribunal has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. There was question of only interpretation of Section 56 in Wakf Act, 1995 and provisions of Section 36 under Old Wakf Act, 1995. The provisions of Section 36-A in Old Act reads thus : 3 C.R.A. No.49/2011 “36-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Wakf deed, no transfer of any immovable property of a wakf by way of -- (i) sale, gift, mortgage or exchange; or (ii) lease for a period exceeding three years in the case of agricultural land, or for a period exceeding one year in the case of non- agricultural land or building” shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Board. “ 5. Further, the provisions of Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 reads thus : “56. Registration on power to grant lease of Wakf property.-- (1) A lease or sub-lease for any period exceeding three years of any immovable property which is Wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of Wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect. (2) A lease or sub-lease for a period exceeding one year and not exceeding three years of immovable property which is Wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of Wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect unless it is made with the previous sanction of the Board. (3) The Board shall, in granting sanction for lease or sub-lease or renewal thereof under this section review the terms and conditions on which the lease or sub-lease is proposed to be granted or renewed and make its approval subject to the revision of such terms and conditions in such manner as may direct.” 4 C.R.A. No.49/2011 6. In the light of the provisions under Section 36-A of the Old Act, there cannot be lease agreement for more than three years and if it is there, it becomes void. Though it is strenuously contended by the counsel for the applicants that the agreement was for 99 years, however, that agreement was in breach of provisions of Section 36-A in Old Act and Section 56 in New Act. In that view of the matter, the Chief Executive Officer has rightly reached to the conclusion that after such period, the applicants become encroachers on the said land. The Tribunal has also taken a possible view. There is no case of any failure of exercising the jurisdiction or the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or there is any irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, in my opinion, under the revisional jurisdiction, no case is made out to interfere, the provisions of Section 36-A of the Old Act and provisions of Section 56 of the New Act are very clear. Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits. Same stands rejected. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cra49.11