1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2011 (Jalalkha Papakha and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri M. Bute, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1. Shri J. Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent no.2. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 28, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati whereby the Revision Application filed by the respondent no.2 herein came to be allowed and resultantly, the order passed by the Additional Collector came to be set aside. The dispute, which has made the parties approach this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is as 2 regards the mutation in respect of area of 1.27 hectare in Survey No. 22. The mutation in respect of the said land was standing in the name of the respondent no.2 herein. On the basis of the certificate granted by the Wakf Board, the mutation came to be effected in favour of the petitioners herein, who are concerned with the Thadi Masjid, which was originally registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and on the Wakf Act, 1995 coming into force as a Wakf, the petitioners had filed an Application before the Wakf Board for issuance of a certificate. The Wakf Board granted the certificate to the petitioners, which certificate, inter alia, covers the land in question as being the property of the Wakf. The said certificate came to be challenged by the respondent no.2 herein by way of filing proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal. The Wakf Tribunal by its order dated 19/3/2008 allowed the said proceedings filed by the respondent no.2 and resultantly, the certificate issued by the Wakf Board came to be set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a Civil Revision Application before 3 the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution on 4/8/2010 and has been since restored on 15/4/2011. Be that as it may, the respondent no.2 aggrieved by the entry made in favour of the petitioners, who are concerned with Thadi Masjid, filed an Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which Appeal came to be allowed by the Sub- Divisional Officer by order dated 31/10/2005. The petitioners herein being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, filed an Appeal before the Additional Collector, which Appeal came to be allowed by the Additional Collector by order dated 21/8/2006. This resulted in respondent no.2 filing a Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31/1/2011. Insofar as petitioners are concerned, the record discloses that the entry in respect of land in question was made in favour of the petitioners and it was confirmed by the Additional Collector only on the basis of the certificate granted by the Wakf 4 Board. The Additional Collector did not take into consideration the fact that save and except the said certificate, there was no other document produced by the petitioners. Insofar as respondent no.2 is concerned, the property in question came to the share of the father of the respondent no.2 pursuant to the decree dated 30/4/1957 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalpur in a suit for partition filed by the father of the respondent no.2 being Regular Civil Suit No.100-A/54. It is required to be noted that though it is claimed by the petitioners that the land in question is a graveyard, there is no entry to that effect in the 7/12 extract. It is further required to be noted that there was no mention of the suit property being a graveyard or in the name of said Thadi Masjid in the office of the Charity Commissioner when the said Thadi Masjid was registered as a public Trust. The impugned order discloses that the Additional Commissioner has taken into consideration the aforesaid material and thereafter has come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Additional Collector setting aside the entry made in 5 favour of the respondent no.2 was unsustainable. Having perused the impugned order dated 31/1/2011, in my view, there is no illegality or infirmity or error of jurisdiction committed by the Additional Commissioner in passing the said order, warranting this Court to interdict in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj