1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4679 /2010 (The Khambtalao Masjid Wakf vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 30th March, 2011. PER COURT : ( PER D.D.SINHA, J.): 1. Heard Mr Z.A. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Anand Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Mr. F.T. Mirza, for respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order/communication dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs Aurangabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, the property of the petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and an award under section 11 was passed, whereby compensation amounting to Rs. 78,09,120/- was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to be paid to the owner. It is submitted that the said amount has not been released in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it is necessary 2 to obtain 'no objection' certificate form the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs. He further submitted that there is no such requirement in law and in absence thereof, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 3. Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner has a statutory alternate remedy under section 83 of the Wakfs Act, before the Tribunal. In order to substantiate his contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Wakfs West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum and another reported in 2010 DGLS (Soft) 2252. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel as well as provisions of Section 83 (1) of the Wakfs Act and the decision of the Supreme Court, supra. The Apex Court in para no.16 has observed thus : “16. We may further clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he/she is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Section 83 (1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83 (2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Section 83 3 (1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property, as the plain language of sections 83 (1) and 84 indicates.” 5. On plain reading of the above-referred observations made by the Apex Court, it is evident that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal not only against the order passed under the Wakf Act, but the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for determination of any dispute, question or matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property under section 83(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the dispute is in respect of entitlement of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by passing award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, in our view, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to approach the Tribunal for settlement of dispute between the petitioner and the Board, under section 83 of the Wakf Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that order of status quo may be continued for a period of four weeks from 4 today. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that till the dispute is resolved before the Tribunal permission be granted to the State Government to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.78,09,120/- in any one of the nationalized banks in a fixed deposit initially for a period of one year. In the interest to justice, we grant permission to the State Government to deposit the said amount in any one of the nationalized banks in a fixed deposit till the inter se dispute between the petitioner and the Wakf Board is resolved by the Tribunal. 7. For the reasons stated herein-above, Writ Petition is disposed of. In view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under section 83 of the Wakf Act, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under section 83 of the Wakf Act. Since the order of status quo is in existence all the while, we continue the same for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE JUDGE sahare