1 CRA 151.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2010 Yeshwant Shivram Deshmukh, Age 70 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Kotul, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETTIONER. (Ori. Plaintiff) VERSUS 1. Kotul Musalman Panch, Kotul Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Trustee, Janab Hussain Abbas Sayyed, age 56 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Kotul, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. The Maharashtra State Board of Wakf Panchakki, Auangabad, Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad through its Chief Officer ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. Resp. No. 1 &2) ... Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.K. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. M.M. Mulla, Advocate h/f Y.B. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No. 2 CORAM :- S.B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE :- 1st JULY, 2011 2 CRA 151.10 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule by consent made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent finally. 3. Counsel present before the Court agree that on 02-06-2010, respondent No.1 had filed an application against the present petitioner before respondent No. 2 Board. Copy of the order is annexed to the petition at Exhibit “I” (Page 45). It appears that on 02-06-2010 after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 had passed this order regarding the land in dispute. Respondent No. 2 by this order allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had directed that possession of encroached area to the extent of 4 Hectares 45 Ares, from agricultural land Gut No. 393, situated at Kotul, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar be handed over by present petitioner within fifteen days from the date of order. He has 3 CRA 151.10 further directed in case failure of present petitioner to hand over possession of encroached area i.e. land to the extent of 4 H. 45 R out of Gut No. 393, respondent No. 1 shall take appropriate proceeding for taking over possession of disputed land. (Emphasis supplied) 4. The order passed by respondent No. 2 in case No. 54/49/2009, dated 02-06-2010 was challenged by the present petitioner by filing an application No. 59 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal at Aurangabad. Copy of said proceedings / application is annexed to the petition as annexture “J” (Page No. 59). 5. With the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court, I have seen the prayers made in the application. The principal prayer made is for quashment of the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 02-06-2010 in an application No. 54/39/2009. Interim relief, by way of stay is also sought for. 6. The application filed by the present 4 CRA 151.10 petitioner, was followed by an application for interim relief in main proceeding i.e. application No. 59 of 2010 though stay to the notice dated 26-08-2010 issued by respondent No. 2 was sought for. The petitioner also sought a stay to the Judgment and order dated 02-06-2010 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 54/49/2009. 7. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an order in September, 2010 and directed the parties to maintain status-quo till further orders. Petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) within two weeks, failing which the order of maintaining status-quo shall be vacated. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order i.e. direction to deposit 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) within two weeks has filed present Civil Revision Application under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner made a 5 CRA 151.10 statement that during the pendency of this application No. 59 of 2010 before the Wakf Tribunal, petitioner will not alienate or dispose of the suit property. However, he submitted that condition imposed by the Tribunal for depositing an amount of 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) needs to be quashed. He points out the earlier order passed on 8-10-2010, whereby notice was issued and ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. The petitioner was protected from depositing 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) as directed by the Wakf Tribunal. In other words, as of today this amount of 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) is not deposited by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to support the order passed by the Wakf Tribunal. According to them, there is a suppression of material facts on the part of petitioner. In my opinion there is no point in entering into this area for the simple reason that the learned Tribunal did not record any reason as to why condition of depositing Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) was imposed and failure thereof was 6 CRA 151.10 made further punitive by saying that status-quo would be vacated. The respondents have claimed that the preservation of property in question in application No. 59 of 2010 is more important and it is in the interest of respondent No. 1 Trust. 9. In this view of the matter, I am accepting the statement of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner will not alienate or dispose of the suit property during the pendency of application No. 59 of 2010 and inclined to quash and set aside part of the order directing to deposit 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) within two weeks. It is thus made clear that the status-quo granted by learned Wakf Tribunal, shall be maintained during the pendency of application No. 59 of 2010. 10. Civil Revision Application accordingly disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) SDM* 1003.91 WP(J)