1 WP60/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2007 Syed Azhar s/o Syed Gani, Age 50 years, Occupation Labour and Agriculture, Resident of Village Pedgaon, Taluka and District Parbhani Petitioner V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra, Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad Respondents 2 Gayasoddin s/o Hafizoddin, Age 32 years, Occupation Inamdar and Agriculture, Resident of Village Pedgaon, Taluka and District Parbhani Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 31st March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 31st August, 2006, in Case No. 2000/ROR/REV/276. The facts leading to this litigation, can be stated, in short, as under : 2. The disputed land Gat No. 103 of village Pedgaon, Taluka and District Parbhani is a “Service Inam” Land in respect of Jama Masjid of village Pedgaon. The respondent here submitted an application on 9th June, 2004 to the Tahsildar requesting him to correct entries in cultivation column of the 2 WP60/07 above mentioned land. The petitioner opposed this application because it was he who was shown as cultivator of the land for last many years. The Tahsildar then made inquiry and held that it was the respondent who was cultivating the land since 2001 till 2005 and his name should be recorded as cultivator in the revenue record. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Collector and succeeded. As against that order, passed by the Additional Collector, the present petitioner filed the revision before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The learned Commissioner however dismissed the revision. As against this, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Before the parties appeared before the Tahsildar in the inquiry which the respondent had initiated with his application in 2004, admittedly they were before the Civil Court. It was the petitioner who had filed suit against the respondent No.2 in the Civil Court asserting that he was in possession of the land in question and the respondent No.2 should be prevented from interfering in the possession. The Civil Court dismissed the suit and so also the learned District Judge dismissed the civil appeal. Even the High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Courts held that the petitioner could not prove his possession. The Courts also impliedly held that it was the respondent No.2 who was in possession of the land in question on the date of filing of the suit. In view of this history, there was practically no reason for the revenue officers to make deeper prob in the question involved, because the question of possession was already decided by the Civil Court, which was confirmed up to the High Court. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, despite of this, asserted that inspite of the findings recorded by the Civil Court, it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar to follow the proper procedure before recording finding of actual cultivation. She pointed out that 3 WP60/07 the Tahsildar had not physically verified the factum of possession and cultivation and recorded his finding without holding proper inquiry. She further asserted that the Tahsildar could not have passed the impugned order, because he could not have corrected the entries in 7/12 extract which were more than three years old. Both these submissions cannot convince me for setting aside the impugned orders. As said above, the petitioner had an ample opportunity before the Civil Court to show and prove that it was he who had exclusively cultivated the land in question, and if this was not proved prior to 2004, the impugned orders were inevitable. 4. Nonetheless, the petitioner should not lose his hope for getting the land in question in his control. As said above, the land in question is ‘Service Inam Land’. It is admitted that one Bashiroddin was the ‘Inamdar’ in respect of this land. Bashiroddin had two sons by name Khaja Moinuddin and Hafizoddin. I am told across the bar orally that after Bashiroddin’s death, his elder son Khaja Moinuddin was held to be his successor by the competent Court i. e. Atiyat Court. I am also told that after Khaja Moinuddin’s death, the Atiyat Court held that his wife Tamijbee was declared ‘Inamdar’. I am further told that even Tamijbee died. I am told, after Tamijbee’s death, certain inquiry before Atiyat Court is going on. Various claims were made by various relatives of Tamijbee for succeeding the ‘Inam’. In case, the petitioner or any other person other than the present respondent succeeds in getting declaration of succession to ‘Inam’, he may then approach the authorities under the Wakf Act and get appropriate orders. It seems, the authorities under the Wakf Act during the survey found that this land and the Masjid, mentioned above, are Wakf properties and they also found that father of the respondent No.2 was in management of the same and declared him as Mutawali in the Gazette which mentioned the 4 WP60/07 data collected at the time of survey. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of father of the respondent No.2, the authorities admitted the respondent No. 2’s claim to be the Mutawali and at present the respondent No. 2 is Mutawali in respect of the Masjid and the land in question. This position, it seems, could be vulnerable to the findings that the Atiyat Court is likely to record. In view of above, the writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/60/07/31/3/11/ok