Dismissed

Sayyed Jammel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abedin and Another

Bombay HC21 Apr 2014CA/3624/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a civil application filed by the applicant, seeking protection of possession based on a 2011 agreement with the District Wakf Officer. The court held that the applicant could not seek such protection because the final decision of the Wakf Tribunal in a prior application had already determined the matter, rendering the current claim untenable.

What did the court decide?

Civil application rejected on the grounds of finality of the Wakf Tribunal's decision in Wakf Application No.6/2011.

Sayyed Jammel Sayyed Maheboob Vs Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abedin and Another — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CA 3624/14 in WP 9715/12

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3624/2014 IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.9715/2012

¶7

Sayyed Jammel Sayyed Maheboob.

¶8

...Applicant..

¶9

Versus

¶10

Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abedin
and another.

¶11

...Respondents..

¶12

 .....

¶13

Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

 .....

¶15

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶16

 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶17

DATE: 21.04.2014

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1]The applicant (respondent no.2 in the writ petition)
has presented the instant application and has contended
that his possession needs to be protected in view of the
agreement entered into on 30.7.2011 between him and the
District Wakf Officer.

¶20

CA 3624/14 in WP 9715/12

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

2]While dealing with the Wakf Application No.6/2011,
the Wakf Tribunal has observed in paragraph no.23 of its
judgment dated 19.3.2012 has observed as under:-

¶23

"The question is whether the transfer of tenancy
of the premises initially leased out to applicant
in favour of respondent no.1 as direct tenant and
Board and that too in exclusion of the managing
committee is a lawful act. In my humble opinion
when the Board admitted status of the applicant
as tenant of institution the impugned order
amounts to his dispossession without following
due process of law."

¶24

3]The applicant before the Wakf Tribunal is the writ
petitioner in the instant petition and claims to be a
tenant directly inducted by the Board. Since the Wakf
Tribunal has observed that the writ petitioner was a
direct tenant inducted by the Board and is in possession
of the tenanted premises, the applicant herein
(respondent no.2 in the writ petition and respondent no.1
before the Wakf Tribunal) did not have any entitlement to
remain in possession. The Wakf Tribunal directed
quashment of the order dated 27.10.2010 holding that the

¶25

CA 3624/14 in WP 9715/12

¶26

applicant did not have entitlement to remain in possession on the basis of the agreement. The same analogy, as has been adopted by the Wakf Tribunal, applies with equal force in reference to the subsequent agreement dated 30.7.2011 relied upon by the applicant. Prima facie , on the basis of analogy derived by the Wakf Tribunal while disposing of Wakf Application No.6/2011, the applicant cannot seek protection under the agreement dated 30.7.2011.

¶27

4]The contention raised by the applicant herein does

¶28

not deserve consideration in view of the finality
attached to the decision rendered by the Wakf Tribunal in
Wakf Application No.6/2011 decided on 19.3.2012. Hence,
the civil application is rejected.

¶29

ndk/c2141417

Sayyed Jammel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abedin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Jammel Sayyed Maheboob v. Kazi Hamidullah Sirajul Abedin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardhan Govardhan Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vikram Namdeo Jagtap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yamunabai @ Sagunabai Popat Raikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikishan Purushottam Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Eknath Gangaram Sabale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Bhimrao Waghunde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others