Dismissed

Shaikh Huzafia Mehdi Abdul Samad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2021PIL/82/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging a 1993 settlement. The Court held that the Petitioners were not directly concerned with the Trust involved in the settlement and therefore lacked locus standi to reopen the matter after 28 years.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of with no costs.

Shaikh Huzafia Mehdi Abdul Samad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(1)

¶2

928-PIL-82-2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

928 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.82 OF 2021

¶5

SHAIKH HUZAFIA MEHDI ABDUL SAMAD AND ORS.

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Sanket
N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶10

 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 06th AUGUST, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

1.Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners submits that petitioners have locus to
file the present Public Interest Litigation. The
petitioners are challenging the settlement arrived
at between respondent no.4 and respondent nos.5 to
10. According to the learned Senior Advocate
petitioners are Muslims and being Muslims and
residents of Ahemadnagar City, petitioners can
assail the transactions between the Trust and
respondent nos.5 to 10. The Wakf Board is also not
taking any action. In all Waqf properties every
Muslims have interest. In fact, the order of the
Revenue Minister was assailed by respondent no.4
before this Court and compromise was arrived

¶14

(2)

¶15

928-PIL-82-2021

¶16

between respondent no.4 on one hand and respondent
nos.5 to 10 on other. The said compromise is
unconscionable and against the provisions of the
Statute.

¶17

2. We have heard the learned A.G.P.

¶18

3.The petitioners are not directly concerned
with the Trust. The settlement between respondent
no.4 on one hand and respondent nos.5 to 10 on
other hand is arrived at in the year 1993 and same
is sought to be challenged after 28 years. The
settlement has been arrived at before this Court.
This Court had disposed of the Writ Petition filed
by the Trust in terms of the compromise. The
learned Single Judge of this Court while recording
the compromise had observed that terms of the
compromise have been approved by the learned 3rd
Additional District Judge, Ahemadnagar and in terms
of the compromise this Court had disposed of the
petition. The compromise decree is a contract
between the parties superimposed with the seal of
the Court.

¶19

4.As observed above, petitioners are not
directly concerned with the Trust. The compromise
is arrived at between the parties and the same has
been accepted by this Court on 29.06.1993.

¶20

5.The petitioners though unconcerned with
the transactions seek to reopen the same after 28
years.

¶21

(3)

¶22

928-PIL-82-2021

¶23

6.In light of the aforesaid factual matrix,
we are not inclined to entertain the present Public
Interest Litigation. The Public Interest
Litigation accordingly stands disposed of. No
costs.

¶24

 (R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

Devendra/August-2021

Shaikh Huzafia Mehdi Abdul Samad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Huzafia Mehdi Abdul Samad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Mohan Prabhakar Bhide vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Janardan Barku Yedge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani Vs the Union of India and Others

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Navsu Chaudhary Vs Administrator Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Diu and Daman and Ors.

Mohan Prabhakar Bhide vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Rajendra Gangadahr Bhujbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Rajwardhan S/O Ishwardatta Metekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others.

Manoj Pitambar Pardeshi Vs the Union of India and Others

Mukhtar Hussain Faiyaz Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Prabhakar Ramchandra Dixit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arati Sharad Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratik Sanjay Surwase Vs v J Pawara