1 of 4 51-WP.1839.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 51 WRIT PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2019 PEERSHAHA SHIRBLI CHIESTI TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES 1. SHAIKH BABU MAKKHAN MUJAWAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Amol K. Gawali, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. N. E. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Competent Authority, National Highways Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Desk/4/LAQ/117/2019, whereby it was directed that an amount of Rs.67,51,831/- be paid to the Tahsildar, Sangamner towards Nazrana and further that an amount of Rs.5,86,09,151/- be transferred to the Maharashtra State Waqf Board by the Petitioner-Trust. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner-Trust is registered under the Waqf Act, 1995, since the year 2008 and is in possession of land admeasuring 2 Hectares 59 Ares out of Survey No.69. The said land was acquired for the purposes of the 2026:BHC-AUG:19172 2 of 4 51-WP.1839.2019 National Highway and compensation was initially awarded and paid to the Petitioners. Thereafter, upon a reference, the Arbitrator enhanced the compensation. 4. It is submitted that Respondent No.3, instead of disbursing the enhanced compensation to the Petitioners, sought guidance from the Waqf Board. The Waqf Board, by communication dated 26.04.2018, advised that the compensation amount be transferred to it. Acting upon the said communication, Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order directing transfer of the amounts to the Waqf Board and towards Nazrana. 5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners contends that such action is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Waqf Board exercises only supervisory control over Waqf properties and is not entitled to receive compensation payable to the Trust. It is further contended that there was no legal basis for directing payment of Nazrana to the Tahsildar, Sangamner. The impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable in law. 6. Per contra, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 supports the impugned order and submits that since the property is a Waqf property, the Waqf Board is entitled to exercise control, and the transfer of compensation to the Board was justified to prevent possible misuse. 3 of 4 51-WP.1839.2019 7. Learned AGP for the State submits that since the land is Waqf/Inam land, the direction to deposit Nazrana with the Tahsildar is proper and supports the impugned order to that extent. 8. Having considered the submissions and perused the record, it is not in dispute that the land in question was in possession of the Petitioner-Trust and that compensation, at the initial stage, was paid to the Petitioners. It is only after enhancement of compensation that Respondent No.3 sought guidance from the Waqf Board and, based on such guidance, passed the impugned order. 9. Upon consideration of the relevant provisions, including Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the provisions of the Waqf Act, it is evident that the Waqf Board exercises supervisory jurisdiction over Waqf properties but is not the competent authority to receive compensation payable to the Trust in respect of acquired land. The compensation is required to be paid to the person interested, i.e., the entity in possession and entitled thereto. 10. In the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Competent Authority to transfer such compensation to the Waqf Board, the impugned direction cannot be sustained. Similarly, no justification is made out for directing payment of Nazrana to the Tahsildar in the facts of the present case. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 4 of 4 51-WP.1839.2019 passed by the Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Competent Authority, National Highways Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner in Desk/4/LAQ/117/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef