1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION NO. 37 OF 2009 Sheikh Amir Sheikh Salag & 3 others versus Chief Executive Officer , M.S.W.B. Aurangabad & one another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR J. DATED : 26 th AUGUST, 2009. Heard Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, advocate for applicants and Shri Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.1. None present for respondent no.2. 1] This revision application has been filed under section 83(9) of the Wakf Act. The facts can be stated thus. 2] On application of respondent no.2 bearing Case No. Nagpur/401/2006 No. MRVM/Choukashi/2199/2006 for removal of encroachment against the revision applicants, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order to remove encroachment. The relevant order reads thus: “Order 1] The application of the applicant is allowed. 2] The encroachment made by the respondent on the property Sunni Hamfi Majid, Bela District Nagpur, House No.529 CTS 30 shall be removed by the respondent on his own, within 15 days and give the possession of the property to the President of the Managing Committee, Jama Masjid Bela. If the encroachment is not removed by the respondents within the prescribed period then it 2 shall be done through the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Respective Parties to bear own costs. All concerned shall be duly notified of the order.” This order was passed on 24.4.2006. 3] Later he challenged this order. In order to establish the title to the property upon which the construction was made, revision applicants preferred suit under section 54(4) of Wakf Act before Wakf Tribunal, Nagpur. The evidence was led and matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer – Principal District Judge, Nagpur and by his order dated 31.3.2009 he dismissed the said suit. Present revision is directed against that order. 4] It would be seen from the impugned order that the learned Principal District Judge has observed that the evidence led by the revision applicants in the suit is not enough to establish that the property on which plaintiffs have constructed the house is not property of Wakf. He also observed that there was nothing; brought on record regarding exact measurement of the property of mosque and property on which they have constructed houses. Further he observed - “Prima facie, the order clearly shows that plaintiffs have encroached over the land of the Mosque. Plaintiffs have not got land measured in order to show that the they have not made encroachment over the wakf property.” 5] Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the evidence led by the plaintiff including oral evidence was not properly considered by the learned Principal District Judge. According to him, the plaintiffs have produced the receipts of payments of taxes to the gram Panchayat which he 3 relied to establish that plaintiffs have constructed their premises on the land belonging to them as names of the plaintiffs were mentioned as Bhogwatdar. 6] I have gone through the contents of the said receipts. Perusal of the said receipt does not show that the said construction was not on the plot on which the mosque was situated, i.e. the property belonging to Wakf of respondent no.2. 7] It is further necessary to note that the suit was brought under section54(4) of the Wakf Act which essentially requires plaintiff to prove that he has right, title or interest in the land building or the properties i.e. the alleged encroached portion of the land. Mere production of receipts of payment of tax cannot confer any title on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs should have led more concrete evidence as regards title to the alleged encroached portion which was so contended by the respondent no.2; some discrepancies in the order of the C.E.O. Wakf Board can not help the plaintiff in a suit under section 54(4) of Wakf Act. 8] In this view of the matter, I do not find that there is any illegality in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, which is impugned in t his revision. There is no error of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction, therefore, the revision can not be entertained. The same is dismissed. JUDGE SMP