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 F INAL 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 2026:BHC-AUG:12394 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/-