1 CRA NO.106/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. NO. 106 OF 2011 1. Ahmedshah s/o Mastanshah, Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, r/o. Kathora Bazar, Tq.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 2. Samdashah s/o Mastanshah Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, r/o. Kathora Bazar, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Panchakki, Aurangabad. 2. The District Wakf Officer, Dist. Jalna. 3. The Collector, Jalna, Collector office, Jalna. 4. Tahsildar Bhokardan, Tahsil office Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 5. Kadarkhan s/o Yousuf Khan Age years, Occ. Agri., r/o. Kathora Bazar, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. J.H.Deshmukh. AGP for Respondent State.: Mr.K.J.Ghute patil. Mr. S.B.Khan, Adv., h/f Mr.M.B.W.Khan, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. U.D.Dalvi, Adv., h/f Mr.Sk.Mujtaba, Adv., for respondent no.5. 2 CRA NO.106/2011 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 25, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard finally. 2. The order of Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 2nd Feb.,2011, rejecting the appeal is questioned in the Civil Revision Application. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision applicant submits, the disputed property is inherited by the applicant as it was flowing from his grand father which is reflected in the appropriate Revenue record. The second submission is, the Presiding Officer, sitting in appeal, did not give appropriate hearing as the adjournment application was rejected. Learned Counsel urged, the matter may be remanded to the Presiding Officer to give hearing to the applicant and to dispose of the appeal in time bound schedule. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has a grievance that inspite of earlier directions of this Court to supply copies of petition and annexures, the same are not adhered to. 3 CRA NO.106/2011 5. At this stage of the matter, the Revenue record to which acceleration is given by Mr. Deshmukh, has no effect to change the situation. The property, from the very record itself, prima facie, is indicated to be of the nature surrounding Wakf. The surreptitious mutation effected in the revenue record by the revenue authorities in favour of the Revisional applicant was cause of concern. This has facilitated Revision Applicant, in illegal disposing of certain part of the agricultural property by laying the plots therein. The Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, by his order dt.18th Oct.,2008, directed effecting proper mutation entries in respect of the disputed land survey No.20 to the extent of 22 acres 8 gunthas. 6. The contention that no hearing was given by the Presiding Officer, is not correctly presented. The Presiding Officer found, Revision applicant exhausted all available remedies, to get the matter protracted, in full swing and, ultimately, when the Presiding Officer noticed that the main object of the applicant is to kill the time he, lastly, reminded and directed to proceed. However, the learned Advocate for the appellant did not argue the matter. Thus, the conduct of the Revision applicant's Advocate, would not make him entitle to seek a remand. 4 CRA NO.106/2011 7. The learned Presiding Officer, as could be seen from the order, perused the record, found irregularity in the conduct of the applicant in mismanaging the affairs and getting the property swindled, to his benefits. The rejection of prayer of appointing him as managing committee member or to appoint managing committee of his choice, was also rightly rejected. 8. Taking these aspects into consideration, I do not see any error or perversity in the order under challenge. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. The applicant is at liberty to exhaust other remedies under the law. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/106-11cra 5 CRA NO.106/2011 agp/