Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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