( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 218 OF 2007 Nandkumar s/o. Sonaji Bhalerao .. Applicant Versus Mohammad Ishaque Haji Ameduddin & anr. .. Respondent WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2007 Bapurao s/o. Dhondopant Bhalerao .. Applicant Versus Mohammad Ishaque Haji Ameduddin & anr. .. Respondent WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 220 OF 2007 Suresh s/o. Manohar Bhalerao .. Applicant Versus Mohammad Ishaque Haji Ameduddin & anr. .. Respondent Shri A.M. Dabir, Advocate for the applicants. Shri J.H. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Miss Sadaf Quazi h/f. Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.2. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.M. Dabir for the revision applicants, Adv. Shri J.H. Deshmukh for respondent No.1 and Miss Sadaf Quazi h/f. Adv. Shri J.R. Shaikh for respondent No.2. 2. These revision applications are filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad on 19.10.2007 on the application filed by the present applicants either to stay proceedings before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad or in the alternative to stay proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (now pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad) under the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act. After hearing the advocates for the parties it is clear that the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, could not have stayed any proceedings before ( 3 ) either the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, as said authorities cannot be said to be inferior to the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal. It is clear that in respect of the immovable properties there is dispute as to whether same are Wakf Properties and also whether they are Inam properties to which the Atiyat Act is applicable. It will have to be decided first whether the properties are Wakf properties, because in that matter the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal got exclusive jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in not allowing applications dated 19.10.2007. However, after giving anxious thought to the submissions before me, it appears that High Court which is Appellate/Revisional and also Writ Court against both the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, can be moved by separate proceedings to stay either of the proceedings. However, these Civil Revision Applications as against order of the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal cannot be allowed. 3. At this stage Adv. Shri A.M. Dabir wishes to withdraw these Civil Revision Applications with liberty to ( 4 ) file appropriate proceedings before the High Court. In view of this, these Civil Revision Applications are disposed of as withdrawn. 4. Interim stay to continue for a period of two weeks, so that the applicants may avail appropriate remedy. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra218.07