NEMULAL MARUTI BHANDWALE AND ANRversusTHE DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:12394
                                                   1                       71-RA.185-12.odt


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            71 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 185 OF 2012
                                           IN CRA/49/2011

                                NEMULAL MARUTI BHANDWALE AND ANR
                                               VERSUS
                                 THE DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER AND ANR

                                                     ...
                                Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bhadekar D. R.
                          Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pathan Yunus Basheer.
                                                     ...

                                                 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                                 DATE : 18.03.2026

                     FINAL ORDER :-


                     1.      Heard both sides.

                     2.      The judgment and order passed on 02.08.2011 in

                     CRA.No.49 of 2011 is under review in the present matter.

                     3.      Applicants had preferred civil revision application

                     against    the   concurrent   findings   of   facts   recorded     by

                     respondent/board vide order dated 26.04.2010 and judgment

                     dated 03.02.2011 passed by Wakf Tribunal in Application

                     No.57 of 2010. They are facing orders of eviction from Gut

                     No.115 situated at Taraf Pingale, Taluka and District Beed. By

                     the order under review, revision was dismissed.

                     4.      Learned counsel Mr. Bhadekar appearing for applicants

                     submits that applicants are tenants since 1950 inducted
                            2                      71-RA.185-12.odt


through Inamdar and they are lawfully in possession of the suit

land. It is submitted that Regular Civil Suit No.215 of 1979

instituted by them was decreed on 18.09.1982. Therefore, they

have very strong case to show that they are not trespasser. It is

submitted that the clinching material on record could not be

produced before respondent/board or Wakf Tribunal indicating

that the possession is lawful and they have become owner of

the suit land. It is urged that opportunity be granted to the

applicants by relegating the matter to the Board or the Tribunal

for deciding it afresh.

5.    Learned counsel Mr. Bhadekar would further advert my

attention to lease deed dated 20.06.1967. It is contended that

the findings recorded by the learned Judge in the judgment

under review are erroneous. It is further submitted that law

laid down in Syed Samiullah s/o Habibullah and another Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others ; 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 966 by the

Division Bench as well as The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman

Ambaji and another ; AIR 1971 SC. 1859 support the claim of

the applicants. It is submitted that applicants are illiterate and

were unaware of their statutory rights and the privileges.

Therefore, one opportunity needs to be extended to them. It is

further submitted that letter dated 18.11.1966 addressed by

Land Acquisition Officer, Beed would indicate that they were
                            3                      71-RA.185-12.odt


tenants and they were awarded part of the compensation. My

attention is also adverted to circular dated 09.08.1955 to

support their claim. It is submitted that amendment to the

Wakf Act also needs to be considered.

6.     Per contract, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that Civil Court while deciding Regular Civil Suit

No.215 of 1979 did not deal with all aspects of the matter. It is

further submitted that respondent/board as well as Tribunal

extended opportunity of hearing and considered relevant

material on record while rendering the decision. The action is

taken against the applicants by resorting to Section 54 of Wakf

Act.   It is further submitted that no case is made out for

entertaining the application under review jurisdiction.

7.     At the outset it has to be noted that judgment under

review was passed on 02.08.2011. Review application was filed

in the year 2012. This Court is hearing review application after

about 13 years. It is incomprehensible as to why the review

could not be heard on earlier occasion especially when learned

Judge who decided the matter was available. The scope of

review jurisdiction has been well settled and it is reiterated by

latest decision in case of Malleshwari Vs. K. Saguna and

others ; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927. A useful reference can
                             4                        71-RA.185-12.odt


also be made to Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra ;

2019 (2) SCC 753.

8.    Review application is not appeal under disguise. All sort

of illegalities cannot be cured in the revisional jurisdiction. It is

not permissible to cause interference while exercising the

review jurisdiction even if judgment under review is erroneous.

The re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible.

9.    None of the submissions advanced by learned counsel

Mr. Bhadekar would fall within the category to entertain the

review jurisdiction. I am not being persuaded by any of the

submissions which would indicate that the observations of the

learned Judge is a mistake apparent on the face of record or

any manifest error.

10.   Applicants had filed Regular Civil Suit No.215 of 1979

for injunction simplicitor. It was decreed with the observations

that their possession was directed to be protected unless due

procedure of law was followed. Initiations of the proceeding

under Section 564 against them and order dated 26.04.2010

passed by the respondent/board can be said to be the due

procedure of law undertaken by the respondent.

11.   It is not the case of the applicants that they were not

given opportunity of hearing either before the respondent/
                            5                      71-RA.185-12.odt


Board or before the Wakf Tribunal. It was open for them to

agitate all the points including their entitlement, tenancy or

ownership. It was open for them to produce on record revenue

record. It is not permissible in review jurisdiction to permit the

parties to rely on any fresh material which was available when

matter was before the Tribunal below. Illiteracy of the client

cannot be a ground to be agitated in the review jurisdiction.

12.   The documents which are tried to be relied upon during

the course of the argument by the applicants namely letter

dated 18.11.1966, circular dated 09.08.1955, revenue record,

Muntakhaf and the list which were produced in the civil Court

cannot be dealt with for the first time in this Court. I am

unable to be persuaded by the submissions that amended

provisions of Wakf Act would enure to the benefits of the

applicants.

13.   The plea which was available for the applicants was not

agitated either before the authorities below or the competent

forum. Those cannot be pressed into service for the first time

in the review jurisdiction.      The judgments cited by the

applicants in Syed Samiullah (supra) and The State of

Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Ambaji will not help him.
                             6                        71-RA.185-12.odt


14.     I do not find any mistake on the face of the record. It is

not a case that after getting knowledge of fresh evidence, the

review has been filed. The documents which are tried to be

relied upon were very well available with the applicants. No

case is made out to cause any interference.

15.     Review application is rejected.

16.     Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

17.     After dictating the order, learned counsel Mr. Bhadekar

seeks continuation of the interim relief which was granted on

20.04.2018.

18.     The request is objected by the respondents.

19.     As the order of status-quo is in operation since 2018 till

this date, it shall be continued for the period of four (4) weeks

and after that it shall stand vacated without reference to the

Court.




                                       (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

                                 ...

vmk/-