Dismissed

Sayyed Jameel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abeddin and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2012CRA/102/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision application challenging a lease order for 11 months, the High Court held that Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 mandates a lease period exceeding one year. Finding the short lease contrary to the Act and expired, the application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Application rejected on the ground that the lease was impermissible under the Wakf Act.

Sayyed Jameel Sayyed Maheboob Vs Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cra102.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2012

¶5

SAYYED JAMEEL SAYYED MAHEBOOB ...APPLICANT.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

KAZI HAMIDULLAH SIRAJUL ABEDDIN AND ORS.

¶8

...RESPONDENTS.

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Deshpande Milind K. Advocate for Respondents :Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Adv h/f Mr.J. H. Deshmukh for R/1.

¶10

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: July 09, 2012.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

This revision application takes exception to the order dated 19th March, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad Application No. 06/2011.

¶13

By the order dated 27th July, 2010, it appears that the suit premises were given on lease to the applicant. It is the contention of the learned Counsel

¶14

cra102.12

¶15

¶16

for the applicant that the said lease was for the period of 11 months. The authority has power to grant property on lease for 11 months. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, when the authority is empowered to grant such lease for 11 months, there was no occasion for the Wakf Tribunal to interfere in the said order. He also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the CRA and submitted that the revision application may be allowed.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents, relying upon the provisions of Section 56 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and also the fact that even the lease period of 11 months has already lapsed, submitted that the civil revision application deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that in the said order of Chief Executive Officer,

¶19

cra102.12

¶20

¶21

Wakf Board, 11 months period has been mentioned. Section 56 of the said At reads, thus:

¶22

" 56. Restriction on power to grant lease of wakf property .- (1) A lease of sub-lease for any period exceeding three years of any immovable property which is wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect.

¶23

(2) A lease or sub-lease for a period exceeding one year and not exceeding three years of immovable property which is wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect unless it is made with the previous sanction of the Board.

¶24

(3) The Board shall, in granting sanction for lease or sub-lease or renewal thereof under this section review the terms and conditions on which the lease or sub-lease is proposed to be granted or renewed and make its approval subject to the revision of such terms and

¶25

cra102.12

¶26

¶27

conditions in such manner as it may direct."

¶28

Bare perusal of the said provision makes it clear that a lease or sub-lease should be for a period exceeding one year and not exceeding three years of immovable property which is wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect unless it is made with the previous sanction of the Board. In the facts of this case, suit plot was given on the basis of lease agreement for 11 months by invoking the provisions of Section 56 of the said Act. It is not in dispute that, said 11 months period has expired. In view of the provisions of Section 56 of the said Act, it was not permissible for the C.E.O., Wakf Board to give said plot on lease for the period less than one year.

¶29

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the said order passed u/s 56 of the said Act is contrary to and de-hors the

¶30

cra102.12

¶31

¶32

provisions of section 56 of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also brought to the notice of this Court that the period of 11 months has already expired.

¶33

Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits and stand rejected.

¶34

(S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶35

PLK/*

Sayyed Jameel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abeddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Jameel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abeddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Namdeo Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhanaji Pachan Patel Vs Jameel Yarkhan Mehaboob Yarkhan and Anr.

The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corp. Vs N C Shaikh

Umaji Satwaji Shep Vs Madhavrao Satwaji Shep, Died Thr. L.Rs. Indrabai and Ors.

Madansing Motising Pardeshi Vs Mahendra Pandit Patil and Ors.

Vikram Kerba Chakkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.