Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Once Wakf, Always Wakf Doctrine Does Not Disturb Tenancy Rights Established Under Tenancy Act: Bombay HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The primary legal issue resolved in this judgement was the conflict between the tenancy rights established under the Tenancy Act and the claims of a property being a Wakf property under the Wakf Act.

The case involved a dispute over land in village Harsool, Aurangabad, claimed as Wakf property by the Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, and as tenanted land under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954, by the respondents. The Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Pratapsingh Nursing Kakarwal), challenging the inclusion of the land as Wakf property in the Government Gazette.

The Court scrutinized whether the Wakf Board’s jurisdiction overrides the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act.

The Court examined the validity and implications of the composite Muntakhab and the nature of the disputed property.

It was determined whether the suit was filed within the limitation period and if the order of the CEO adding the land in a Wakf register was legally binding.

The applicability of Section 54 (4) of the Wakf Act 1995 was scrutinized.

The Bombay High Court held that the Wakf Board does not have overriding jurisdiction on tenancy issues decided under the Tenancy Act.

The Court observed that the orders of the Tenancy Tribunal regarding the nature of the land as Madad Maash (a type of grant) should not be disturbed by the Wakf Board.

It was concluded that the petitions challenging the Wakf Board’s decisions were filed within the permissible time limit, thus not time-barred.

The Bombay HC dismissed the revision applications, upholding the rights of the tenants and emphasizing that the doctrine of “Once Wakf, Always Wakf” does not disturb established tenancy rights.

 DATE OF DECISION: 14TH FEBRUARY 2024

SAYYED MOINUDDIN SAYYED SAIFODDIN AND ANOTHER VS PRATAPSINGH NURSING KAKARWAL

Latest Legal News