1 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3243 OF 2025

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13258 OF 2025

IN FA/3243/2025

1.The Gram Panchyat, Dindrud,

Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed

Through its Sarpanch,

Smt. Kamalabai Dagadu Surwase,

Age; 55 years, Occ; Agril,

R/o; Village Dindrud, Tq. Majalgaon,

District; Beed. ...APPELLANT

(Ori.Deft. no.1)

VERSUS

1.Dargah Hazrat Osman Shah Wali,

& Graveyard, situated at Dindrud,

Tqluka Majalgaon, District; Beed,

Through legal heirs of Mutawalli,

Ilias Nawab Shaikh, Age; 52 years,

Occ; Agri, & Business,

R/o; Mominpura Road, Masoom

Colony, Beed, District; Beed. ...Orig.Pltff. No.1.

2.Pathan Farukh Khan Ansar Khan,

Age; 44 years, Occ. Business & Agri,

R/o; Dindrud, Taluka Majalgaon,

District; Beed. ...Orig.Pltff. No.2.

3.Shaikh Akhil Chand,

Age; 50 years, Occ; Business & Agri,

R/o; Dindrud, Taluka Majgalgaon,

District; Beed. ...Orig.Pltff. No.3. 2026:BHC-AUG:6848

2 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

4.The Maharashtra State Board of ...Orig.Deft. No.2.

Waqf, through its Chief Executive

Officer, having office at Panchakki,

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ...RESPONDENTS.

...

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande (Senior Advocate)

a/w Mr. Swapnil S. Paturnkar and Ms. Priyanka Deshpande i/b J.P.

Legal Associates

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Javed Abdul Hameed

Deshmukh

Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh (Senior

Advocate) a/w Mr. Nilanjan Pande and Mr. Ubaid Hashmi i/b Mr. N.

E. Deshmukh

…

CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

Date of Reserve of Judgment : 09.02.2026

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 17.02.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande, a/w

Mr. Swapnil S. Paturnkar, and Ms. Priyanka Deshpande, i/b J.P.

Legal Associates for the appellant, Mr. Javed Abdul Hameed

Deshmukh, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh

(Senior Advocate), a/w Mr. Nilanjan Pande, and Mr. Ubaid Hashmi

i/b Mr. N. E. Deshmukh, appearing for the respondent No. 4.

3 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

2. By the present appeal under Section 83 (a) of the Unified

Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act,

1995 (Act No. 43 of 1995) [As on the 1st May, 2025], (in short “the

U.M.E.E.D. Act”) the appellant Gram Panchayat takes exception to the

order dated 07.11.2025, passed below Exhibit-5 and 5-A in Waqf suit

bearing No. 44 of 2025 by the learned District Judge/Chairman,

Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby, temporarily

restrained the present appellant/original defendant No. 1 from

holding weekly Bazar and destroying Kabrasthan and changing the

nature of the suit property i.e. Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14) to the

extent of 3 Acres (1 H 20 R) land situated at Dindrud, Tq. Majalgaon,

District Beed, during the pendency of the suit.

3. The present appellant is the original defendant No. 1,

whereas, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs and the

respondent No. 4 is the original defendant No. 2, in Waqf Suit No. 44

of 2024. (For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties to the

present appeal hereinafter will be referred in their original capacity as

the plaintiffs and defendants).

4. The plaintiffs have filed the Waqf Suit bearing No. 44 of

4 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

2024 and prayed for declaration that, the suit property bearing Gut

No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14) to the extent of 3 Acres situated at

Dindrud, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. It is the contention of the

plaintiffs that, suit land bearing Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14) out

of which 3 Acres situated at Dindrud, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed, is

owned and in possession of the plaintiffs. The description of said

property is as under:

Towards East: Gavthan,

Towards West: River,

towards North: Gut No. 741 and 732,

Towards South: part of Gut No. 731

(For the sake of brevity, the above mentioned suit

property hereinafter will be referred to as the “suit property/Waqf

Property”.)

5. The Plaintiff no. 1 is the Waqf Institution Dargah Hazarat

Osman Shah Wali. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are permanent resident

of Dindrud and they are interested persons in respect of affairs of the

Plaintiff no. 1. According to the plaintiffs, their ancestors were buried

in the Graveyard i.e. suit property, therefore, they are interested

persons in the Waqf property and the management of the Kabrasthan

5 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

(Graveyard). According to the plaintiffs, the Plaintiff no. 1 is owner

and in possession of the Waqf property i.e. graveyard to the extent of

3 acres of land. The State Government issued Notification dated

14.02.1974 under the Old Waqf Act, 1954 and allotted 3 acres of land

out of Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14). The

Surveyor/Commissioner/Tahsildar conducted the survey under the

provisions of Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954 and declared 3 acres of

land is a Waqf property. The said property is duly registered with

Defendant No. 4, the Maharashtra State Board of Waqf, Aurangabad

under Section 43 of the Waqf Act, 1955 vide registration No.

MSBW/64/2007. So also, the suit property is recorded as Muslim

Kabrasthan, to the extent of 1 H 20 R in the Revenue record i.e. 7/12

extract, after following due process of law provided under the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short the “M.L.R. Code”). It is

further contended that, the defendant No. 4, the Maharashtra Waqf

Board measured the said suit property on 27.07.2016. As per the

Revenue Map and record, the suit property is in possession of the

Plaintiff being Graveyard since ancient period and the Muslim

Community’s dead bodies are buried therein without any disturbance.

However, on 01.02.2024, the defendant No. 1 Grampanchyat,

Dindrud, passed the resolution about removal of Iron Compound of

6 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

the suit property/ Graveyard and holding weekly Bazar by destroying

Tombs as well as changing the nature of the suit property. Therefore,

they submitted the representation with the Collector, Beed and other

Competent Authorities but no action was taken. The plaintiffs further

contended that, the defendant No. 1 being a Statutory Body,

therefore, it is obligatory on it’s part to protect the suit of public

property, however, with an ulterior motive allotted the suit property

for weekly market.

6. It is further contended that, the said graveyard is ad-

measuring 1 H 20 R i.e. total 3 Acres out of Gut No. 731 and there is

open land ad-measuring 67 R, wherein, the weekly market is being

held and organised by the Defendant no. 1 from decades. However,

the defendant made encroachment upon the land of Muslim

Kabrasthan (Graveyard) and permitting the vendors to install

vegetable shops for Weekly market. So also, the vegetable vendors

and vendees are causing damages to the Tombs and decreasing area

of graveyard due to encroachment. Further, on 01.02.2024, the

defendant No. 1- Grampanchayat, passed the resolution and started

allotting stalls/shops for weekly market in the graveyard by

destroying Tombs of Plaintiff’s ancestors. Due to which there is every

7 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

possibility about rising communal dispute between the Hindu and

Muslim communities. Therefore, prayed for declaration of ownership.

7. The plaintiffs filed Exhibit-5 and 5-A, an Application under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for

temporary injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants,

agents or any other persons on their behalf from installing shops,

holding weekly market in the suit property and disturbing their

possession during the pendency of suit.

8. The defendant No. 1 Grampanchyat filed its Written

Statement/reply Exhibit-28. The defendant no. 1 denied claim of the

plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have suppressed

material facts about the suit land. The suit is bad in law due to non-

joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not disclosed proper

description of the suit property. So also, suit property cannot be

identified as per the provisions of the Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, when the property card identified as Waqf Property,

to the extent of 2343.7 Sq.M. only. It is further contended that, the

Government Gazette dated 14.02.1974, is fake, fabricated and bogus.

So also, the Government Notification/ Gazette dated 14.02.1974 was

8 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

produced on record by the defendant No. 2, the Maharashtra Waqf

Board with the office of the Collector, Beed has not disclosed that the

suit property is the Waqf property. The Plaintiff admitted the revenue

record, 7/12 extract wherein Muslim Kabrasthan is shown in respect

of 1 H 20 R land as Muslim Graveyard (Kabrasthan). The dispute

about mutation entry bearing No. 2127 is sub-judice in appeal before

the learned Special Additional Magistrate, Majalgaon, District Beed.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are having no interest, title over the suit

property, hence, they are not entitled for the temporary injunction.

9. According to the defendants, the Dargah and adjoining

land with old graves are only to the extent of 2343.7 Sq.M., however,

the plaintiffs produced the manipulated measurement map of the

land. Further, on 01.02.2024, the defendant No. 1 passed a resolution

in its general body meeting in the larger public interest to protect the

Government land from encroachment. The said land ad-measuring 1

H 87 R being the Government ‘Gairan’ land out of Gut No. 731 after

the consolidation. The revenue record does not reflect entry of

Kabrasthan at Gut No. 731 (old Survey No. 14) till 2007. According

to the Defendant, weekly market is being held in the suit land from

Nijam era. Further, various Government and quasi-government

9 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

buildings/structures are standing on the suit land including offices of

Gram Panchayat, Zilla Parishad, Primary School since 1956. Two

Government Godowns, Garden, Bus Stand, Shopping Complex, Otla

for weekly market, public water well, and water tank etc., are

standing on old Survey No. 14. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to

make out prima facie case, no balance of convenience lies in favour of

the plaintiffs. So also, if the injunction is not granted, no prejudice

would caused to the plaintiffs, hence, prayed for rejection of the

application for temporary injunction.

10. On 07.11.2025, the learned District Judge/the Chairman,

the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad passed the

impugned order below Exhibit-5 and 5-A and restrained temporarily

the defendants, its agents, servants or any other person claiming

through them from holding the weekly market/Bazar or destroying

the Kabrasthan or changing the nature of the suit property during the

pendency of the suit.

11. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the appellant/defendant No. 1 canvassed that, on 22.08.2007 the

Tahsildar, Majalgaon issued a communication to the Sub Divisional

10 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

Officer, Ambejogai about taking mutation entry in respect of the land

Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14), ad-measuring 1 H 87 R, out of

which 1 H 20 R land is allotted to the Muslim Graveyard, but since

past five decades, the weekly market is being held in suit land and it

is mutated in the name of Grampanchyat as Gairan land. However,

the Talathi effected mutation entry showing 1 H 20 R land for Muslim

Graveyard. Therefore, an application is submitted for cancellation of

the mutation entry No. 2127. On 12.01.2009, the Sub Divisional

Officer, Ambejogai accorded sanction under Section 258 of the M.L.R.

Code and revoked mutation entry No. 2127.

12. It is further canvassed that, on 28.02.2024 the Tahsildar

(Revenue) issued a communication to the Sub Divisional Officer,

Majalgaon about initiation of action and to submit the report about

cancellation of the mutation entry No. 2127, in respect of the land

bearing Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14). As per the Government

notification dated 14.02.1974, at Serial No. 35 to 38, the properties

are shown as Waqf properties i.e. at Dindrud i.e. area 40 x 24 ft. of

Ajdur Khana Road, the area 32 x 26 ft. Chila Maheboob Shubhani, 45

x 32 ft., Jumma Masjid and 105 x 45 ft., Masjid and graveyard area

out of the suit property. However, the plaintiffs rely on false and

11 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

bogus Government Gazette dated 14.02.1974, wherein, the land ad-

measuring 3 Acres allegedly allotted out of (old Survey No. 14) in

favour of Dargah Hazarat Usman Shah Wali. Therefore, the learned

Waqf Board/Tribunal, Aurangabad could have discarded said

Government Gazette and ought to have rejected the temporary

injunction, hence, impugned order is illegal, bad in law.

13. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Deshpande appearing for

the appellant further canvassed that, at the earlier point of time the

defendant Grampanchyat had filed RCS No. 271 of 2008 before the

Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon. In said suit the Defendant

specifically pleaded about holding the weekly market since past 50

years and construction of Otla for the vendors. So also, on one part of

the survey No. 731 (Old Survey No. 14) there is government

buildings/schools, warehouse, Bajuba Devsthan, Hanuman Mandir

etc., situated. The suit land was never in possession of the plaintiffs,

so also the plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit property.

Therefore, the learned trial Court could have declined to grant

temporary injunction. However, the learned Waqf Board/Tribunal

passed the impugned order and recorded perverse findings, hence,

prayed for quashing and settting aside the impugned order.

12 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

14. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Salem

Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu

and Others - 2023 DGLS (SC) 590, (Spureme Court) & equivalent AIR

2023 (SC) 2769, 2023 (16) SCC 264, wherein it has been observed

that;

“There is no material or evidence on record that

before issuing notification under Section 5 of the

Waqf Act, 1954 any procedure or survey was

conducted as contemplated under Section 4 of the

Act. In absence of such material, mere issuance of

notification under Section 5 of the Act would not

constitute the valid Waqf in respect of the suit land.

Therefore, the notification dated 29.04.1959 is not a

conclusive proof of the fact that the suit land is the

Waqf property. It is for this reason probably that the

appellant Committee had never pressed the said

notification into service up till 1999”.

15. It further relied on the case of Francisco Rodrigues and

Another Vs. Angelica Rebello – 2010 (6) Bom. C.R. 69, wherein it is

held that;

“The person to be joined must be one whose

presence is necessary as party. What makes a person

a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant

evidence to give on some of the questions involved

that would only make him a necessary witness. It is

not merely that he has an interest in the correct

solution of some question involved and has thought

13 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason

which makes it necessary to make a person a part to

an action is so that he should be bound by the result

of the action and the question to be settled,

therefore, must be a question in action which cannot

be effectually and completely settled unless he is a

party. The line has been drawn on a wider

construction of the rule between the direct interest

or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is

therefore, necessary that the person must be directly

or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e.

he can say that the litigation may lead to a result

which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his

legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule

contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose

only object is to prosecute his own cause of action”.

16. It further relied on the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal –

2005 AIR (SC) 2813, (Equivalent 2005 (6) SCC 733, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of the appellate

jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Constitution of India and held

that;

“It is open to the Court to interfere with the order if it

is held that two Courts below had acted without

jurisdiction or acted illegally and when the material

irregularity in the exercise on their jurisdiction in the

matter of allowing application for addition of parties

filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure”.

17. The respondent No. 1/original Plaintiff filed the

14 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

affidavit/reply of one Shaikh Akhil s/o Chand and strongly resisted

the present appeal as well as prayer for grant of stay to the impugned

order.

18. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deshmukh canvassed

that, as per the revenue record, as well as Government notification

dated 14.02.1974, the plaintiff is owner and in possession of 3 acres

of land, out of Gut No. 731 (old Survey No. 14 and suit land already

declared as Waqf property by the State Government.

19. It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondent/ori.

Plaintiffs that, under the Government Gazette Notification dated

14.02.1974, the State Government allotted 3 acres of land out of Gut

No.731 (Old Survey No. 14) to the plaintiff for Muslim Graveyard.

The Government Gazette dated 14.02.1974 (document No. 5 of the

Appeal Memo) produced by appellant/defendant shows that, the

plaintiff Dargah Hazarat Usman Shah Wali, at Serial No. 35 to 38 and

said land is shown as Waqf properties i.e. at Dindrud i.e. area 40 x 24

ft. of Ajdur Khana Road, then area 32 x 26 ft. Chila Maheboob

Shubhani, 45 x 32 ft., Jumma Masjid and 105 x 45 ft., Masjid and

graveyard out of the suit property. However, this document does not

15 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

suggest that 3 acres of land was allotted to the plaintiffs out of Gut

No.731 (old Survey No. 14). But the Government notification dated

14.02.1974 itself shows that 3 acres of land out of old Survey No. 14

was allotted to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant/present

appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land.

Therefore, the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance

of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. So also, if the temporary

injunction is not granted in that event the vegetable vendors and large

numbers of people who are attending weekly market is likely to cause

damages to tombs of ancestors of the Muslim communities. Therefore,

the learned trial court considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and temporarily restrained the Defendants, its agents, servants or

any other person holding weekly market on the suit property, hence,

no case is made out to disturb the findings. Therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

20. In order to grant temporary injunction, the Court requires

to consider prima facie case, the balance of convenience and

irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted as contemplated under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Taking into consideration of cardinal principal and having regard to

16 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the sides, I have gone

through the record. It is not in dispute that, as per the revenue record

i.e. ‘Gav Namuna No. 7’, Gut No. 731 is ad-measuring 1 H 87 R, out

of which, as per the mutation entry No. 2127, 1 H 20 R land is

allotted to the plaintiffs for Kabrasthan and 67 R land being Gairan

land is given to the appellant-Grampanchyat. As per the revenue map,

the Gavthan area/vacant land is shown towards South-West Corner,

and BSNL Tower is shown adjacent to the land of Gavthan. There is a

School towards North-West side of Survey No. 731. The Dargah is

shown towards North-East side. The Defendant no. 1 as Gram

Panchayat has not denied four corners of the suit premises.

21. Though the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/original defendant canvassed that, actual land of the

Dargah is total 2400 Sq. Ft. and old tombs are situated adjoining the

the Dargah, which is protected by the villagers. Therefore, mere entry

in the notification issued by the State Government Gazette does not

ipso facto the suit property is Waqf property. So also, there is no

measurement conducted by making bifurcation of the Government

land and so called Kabrasthan land. However, as per the revenue

record i.e. ‘Gav Namuna No. 7’, Gut No. 731 is ad-measuring 1 H 87

17 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

R, out of which, as per the mutation entry No. 2127, 1 H 20 R land is

allotted to the plaintiffs for Kabrasthan and 67 R land being Gairan

land is given to the appellant Grampanchyat. The Government

Notification issued on 14.02.1974 shows about allotment of 3 Acres of

land out of Gat No. 731. Therefore, there is presumption that, the

plaintiffs are owners and in possession of suit land. So also, the

Defendant no. 1 has not brought any substantial material on record to

show that, from last 5 decades weekly market is being held on the suit

land.

22. Needless to say that, both the parties have not denied that

the area of old Survey No. 14 and New Gut No. 731 is approximately

1 H 87 R. On the face of the record, it appears that, under

Government Gazette published on 14.02.1974 the respondent No.

1/Original Plaintiff was given an area of 1 H 20 R. On face of the

record it appears that, the survey was conducted and the required

information under the annexure-A was submitted with the Divisional

Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, wherein, the land of

Dargah Hazarat Osman Shah Wali and Muslim Graveyard shown in

old Survey No. 14. As per the Gav Namuna No. 07 and mutation

entry No. 2127, 1 H 20 R land is possessed by the respondent No.

18 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

1/plaintiff and remaining 67 R land shown being Gairan land is in

possession of the appellant/defendant No. 1 Grampanchyat. It is not

in dispute that, Tombs are constructed in the area of 1 H 20 R land

allotted by the State Government in favour of the respondent No.

1/plaintiff.

23. No doubt, in past, the present appellant/original

defendant No. 1 had instituted RCS No. 271 of 2008 and prayed for

decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect

of suit land against the State Government and other defendants

including the Revenue Authority. In the said suit, the present

appellant pleaded that, the Revenue Authority/Tahsildar without any

inquiry effected the mutation entries on 13.01.1997 and shown Gut

No. 731 (old Survey No. 14) for Muslim graveyard and without notice

to the Grampanchyat the mutation entry No. 2127 was effected on

24.03.2007. On 10.07.2009, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Majalgaon passed an order below Exhibit-1 and framed preliminary

issue, “Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ?”

24. On 31.07.2009, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Majalgaon, passed an order below Exhibit 19 and returned the plaint

19 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

to the present appellant- Grampanchyat/Defendant No. 1 for filing the

same before Waqf Board/Tribunal at Aurangabad. However,

admittedly, the present appellant/original defendant No.1 has not

filed the suit till date before the Waqf Board/Tribunal.

25. During the course of hearing, the respondents/ori.

plaintiffs have filed photographs on record, which shows that the

vegetable vendors are sitting on the Tombs in Graveyards and selling

vegetables and people are visiting to purchase the vegetable. So also,

some tombs are damaged. Since the suit land is allotted for Muslim

Graveyard and it is in possession of the Respondent no. 1/Ori.

Plaintiff, therefore, the Defendant no. 1 Grampanchyat has no right to

conduct Weekly market in the suit property. Therefore, to my view,

the Respondents/ Plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and

balance of convenience lies in their favour. So also, if the temporary

injunction is not granted in that event there is every possibility of

damage being caused to the Tombs of deceased Muslim persons

including forefathers of the plaintiff nos. 2 & 3.

26. On face of record it appears that, vide order dated

22.08.2007, the Tahsildar requested the learned Sub Divisional

20 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

Officer, Ambejogai to cancel the mutation entry as it is erroneous and

the learned Sub Divisional Officer by its communication dated

12.09.2009, allowed the said proposal under Section 258 of the

M.L.R. Code and has cancelled the mutation entry No. 2127, however,

the said order has not been executed till date.

27. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel

appearing for the respondent No. 4, produced a proclamation dated

26.11.2025 published by the appellant/Grampanchyat and proceeding

dated 26.12.2025, wherein the appellant/ori. Defendant

Grampanchyat resolved to maintain the status-quo in respect of the

land of the Kabrasthan to the extent of four corners of the Muslim

Graveyard. As per the proclamation the Defendant/ Grampanchyat

has decided to only assemble market within 67 R area.

28. As per the facts narrated, herein above, the land ad-

measuring 1 H 20 R allotted to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under

the Government Gazette published on 14.02.1974 and as per the

mutation entries, the land ad-measuring 67 R is left with the

defendant No. 1 Grampanchyat, out of Gut No. 731 (Old Survey No.

14). The respondent No. 1/plaintiff has placed on record the

21 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

registration certificate of Waqf Institution, which shows that 3 acres of

land out of Survey No. 14 is registered in the name of Waqf

Institution. Though the appellant/plaintiff contended that, the

Government Gazette dated 14.02.1974 is fake and fabricated, but the

7/12 extract produced on record by the defendant No. 1 from the year

1981 to 2016 appears that, in the column of rights, the land ad-

measuring 1 H 20 R is mutated as Muslim Kabrasthan. The

appellant/defendant No. 1 has brought nothing on record to show

that, the said Government Gazette dated 14.02.1974 is fake and

fabricated. So also, the appellant/ defendant has not initiated any

proceedings against respondent No. 1/plaintiff for creating false and

fabricated Government Gazette. Therefore, considering the material

available on record and there is every likelihood of damage being

caused to the Tombs and as such on prima facie satisfaction, the

learned trial Court held that, if the weekly market is allowed to be

held on the area of 3 acres of land out of Gut No. 731, there is every

possibility to cause damage to the graves but could also cause

desecration to the graves if the people walk on it or install shops over

it. Therefore, I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned

trial Court are perverse, illegal, bad in law, hence, I do not find that

the appellant has made out substantial grounds to interfere with the

22 FA 3243 of 2025 & ca13258.25 Judgment

impugned order. Therefore, present appeal is dismissed.

29. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 13258 of 2025 in

First Appeal No. 3243 of 2025 is disposed of.

( Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)

mahajansb/