Allowed

Mr. Anwar Ismail Saifan v. Mr. Ismail Chandso Mujawar

Bombay HC9 Apr 2018CRA/647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision application, the Bombay High Court corrected an order by the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner, appointed as Mutawalli, must be given an opportunity of hearing before the Board of Waqf passes a fresh order appointing a new Mutawalli under the Waqf Act, 1995.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order of the Waqf Tribunal is modified to require the petitioner to be heard before any fresh order is passed by the Maharashtra State Board of

Mr. Anwar Ismail Saifan Vs Mr. Ismail Chandso Mujawar — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

38 CRA 647 OF 2016.odt

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 647 OF 2016

¶5

Anwar Ismail Saifan	…	Applicant.
V/s.
Ismail Chandso Mujawar
and ors	…	Respondents

¶6

Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, for the Applicnt. Dr. Ramdas P. Subban, for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATE : 9^TH APRIL, 2018.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

¶11

No.2.

¶12

2] By this Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28^th March, 2016 passed by Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal at Aurangabad, in Waqf Application No.44 of 2015.

¶13

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Waqf Tribunal has passed the impugned order, setting aside the order dated 28.7.2015, passed in Case No.69/62/2015 appointing Ad-hoc Committee of Anwar Ismail Saifan and others, remanding the matter

¶14

1/2

¶15

38 CRA 647 OF 2016.odt

¶16

to Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, Aurangabad, to appoint suitable person to perform all or any of the function of the Mutawalli of the Dargah, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant No.1 Ismail Chandso Mujawar and applicant No.2 Akhlak Ahmed M. Wadwan.

¶17

4] The present petitioner, who was appointed as Mutawalli, is however, not giving an opportunity of being heard before Maharashtra State Board of Waqf and to that extent only the interference is required in the impugned order.

¶18

5] In my considered opinion, as the petitioner herein was appointed as Mutawalli, he is also required to be heard before any fresh order is passed under Section 69(5) read Section 63 of Waqf Act, 1995, by the Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, Auranabad.

¶19

6] Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. 7] The impugned order passed by the Waqf Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner herein be also given an opportunity of hearing before passing any order by the Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, Aurangabad.

¶20

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶21

2/2

Mr. Anwar Ismail Saifan v. Mr. Ismail Chandso Mujawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anwar Ismail Saifan v. Mr. Ismail Chandso Mujawar

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

Niphad Sakhar Kamgar Sabha Shakha Kakasahebnagar Vs Karmavir Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Ambarwadikar Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Liquidator and Ors.

Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Amberwadikar Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bhimrao Jogu Jadhav and Ors. Vs Prashant Shivaji Kandurkar and Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Shri.Sanjay Ramkrisna Mirajkar

Shri.Ragunath Subrao Patil Vs Shankar Krishna Teli (Deceased Thru Lrs) and Others