( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2009 Vidyanand s/o. Venkatram Peddi and ors. .. Applicants Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra .. Respondent State Wakf Board, Panchakki, Aurangabad. Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri M.G. Mustafa, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 31.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, whereby he held that Suit No. 10 of 2005, filed by present Revision Applicants was not tenable; firstly on the ground that it was not tenable under proviso to Section 54 (4) of the Wakf Act, 1995 and secondly it is also bad as no notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act, 1995, was issued. ( 2 ) 2. Briefly stated the present applicants/plaintiffs approached the Court with a case that 1638.3 sq.mtr.out of C.T.S. No. 16038 situated at Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad, was Wakf property. It was given in possession of the present applicants, as per lease deed for 51 years executed by the Secretary, Marathwada Wakf Board, Aurangabad, on 13.09.1996. However, inspite of said lease deed, the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad, by notice dated 17.02.2005, had initiated proceedings under Section 54 of the Wakf Act and decided the same and held after hearing the parties that the plaintiffs/applicants are encroachers. Secretary of the Marathwada Wakf Board could not have executed lease-deed beyond three years and under the circumstances possession of present applicants is that of trespassers and therefore he passed order of taking possession as per Section 54 of the Wakf Act. It is this order which is challenged by the present applicants by filing Suit No. 10 of 1995 in the Wakf Tribunal of Maharashtra at Aurangabad. 3. In the said suit the respondent filed applications ( 3 ) Exhs. 24 and 25 objecting to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that firstly the suit is not tenable under proviso to Section 54 (4) of the Wakf Act and secondly no notice under Section 89 of the Wakf Act was issued. Both the applications were heard together and the learned Presiding Officer (Wakf Tribunal), came to a conclusion that the suit was not tenable and it is this order, which is challenged in this revision petition. 4. After hearing the learned Adv. Shri Kazi for the applicant for some time on both the points, it is revealed that according to Adv. Shri Kazi, respondent – The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Wakf Board, Aurangabad, is added not in his capacity as representative of the Wakf Board, but in his individual capacity as he has decided the matter under Section 54 of the Wakf Act. If it is so, then it can be said that respondent – The Chief Executive Officer is added in his quasi-judicial capacity for deciding the matter under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995. In the circumstances, there remains nobody to represent the Darga (Wakf), which owned the property. Unless there is some one to represent the Wakf property, such as Mutawali or the ( 4 ) Management Body, this suit itself is not tenable. Since nobody is representing the Wakf in question, in my opinion, the suit itself is not tenable and therefore on this count itself, no interference with the order passed by the Tribunal is necessary. 5. It is not submitted by Adv. Shri S.S. Kazi, but even assuming that the Maharashtra State Wakf Board represents the erstwhile Marathwada Wakf Board, whose Secretary, had executed the lease deed dated 13.09.1996, in that case also the Wakf Board should be made defendant in the suit. The learned advocate for the applicant is not in a position to state immediately whether there is any Mutawali or Managing Committee appointed for the Wakf. In the facts and circumstances, no interference is required in the ultimate conclusion that suit is not tenable. Therefore, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. Other questions of law are left open. The applicants are at liberty to avail appropriate proceedings as per the law. ( 5 ) 7. At this stage Adv. Shri S.S. Kazi stated that the Revision Applicants may be given protection for a period of four weeks, during which period they may file appropriate proceedings. Adv. Shri M.G. Mustafa for the respondent vehemently opposed the same. The interim protection is extended for a period of four weeks from today. 8. The Civil Revision Application is disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra92.09