Pralhad S/O Arjunrao Kale. vs. Maharashtra State Board Of Waqfs Aurangabad Through Its Chief Executive Officer And Anr.

By the present appeal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, the appellant challenges the order dated 19.09.2025, passed in Waqf Application No.75 of 2025, by the Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby affirmed the order dated 1 of 11 2026:BHC-AUG:12255

The present appellant is the original applicant and the respondents are the original non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. For the sake of brevity, I would like to refer the parties to the present appeal in their original capacity, as the applicant and the non-applicants.

In short, it is the case of the applicant that the Waqf institution i.e. Masjid at Manjarat, taluka Majalgaon, District Beed, having the agricultural land and it is in the possession of respondent No.1 Waqf Board. On 11.08.2025, the respondent No.1 Waqf Board published a proclamation for giving the Waqf agriculture field bearing Survey/Gat No.187 admeasuring 35 Acre 11 Gunthas for cultivation for a period of three years. The upset price was fixed at Rs.1,67,000/- excluding GST 18% per year. In pursuance of the said tender/proclamation, the present applicant submitted an application on 11.06.2025 and offered highest price for three years and deposited requisite fees. According to the applicant, he complied all the terms and conditions of the proclamation / tender. Thereafter, on 2 of 11

It is the contention of the applicant that, he has immediately submitted an application with respondent No.2 District Waqf Officer, disclosing the fact that, he has deposited the requisite tender amount by cheque and complied all the terms and conditions of the advertisement, but without considering his application, respondent No.1 has passed the order dated 13.08.2025 and allotted the land in favour of one Sadiq Shah Shaikh Ramzan Shah, which is illegal, bad in law, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, the applicant never served with the notice prior to change in tender condition and no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, therefore, the action on the part of the respondent No.1 while passing the order dated 11.08.2025 is illegal and bad in law.

It is further contended that the applicant and the respondents are entered into a concluded contract, hence, it is binding upon both the parties, because, the offer which has been given by the non-applicant, accepted by the applicant and he FA-2746-2025 negative impact on such other public-private ventures and ultimately it is the public who would have to bear the brunt thereby frustrating the very object of public interest.

In the cited case, it is further held that although the disputes arising purely out of contracts are not amenable to writ juri iction, yet keeping in mind the obligation of the State to act fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously, it is now well settled that when contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial review. In appropriate cases, the court can issue a writ to correct contractual wrongs committed by the State to ensure that the instrumentalities of the State act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 14. Once an offer is accepted absolutely and unconditionally, a concluded contract comes into an existence and such contract is binding on the parties.

Therefore, the learned counsel for appellant submits that, the learned Waqf Tribunal failed to consider that the bid of the applicant was successfully accepted by respondent No.1, however, without considering the fact of concluded contract, the learned Waqf Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, which is illegal, bad in law, hence prayed for quashing and setting aside the same.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents canvassed that, as per the tender notice, the Waqf Board decided to allot the agricultural land for cultivation for the period of three years. The upset price was fixed at Rs.2,77,939/-. However, the applicant has quoted lesser amount than the upset price. Further, as per the terms and condition Nos. 2, 5 and 8, the board is having every right to decrease or increase the cultivation period of the agricultural land and all the terms and conditions are well within the knowledge of the applicant. Though the applicant claimed that, there was concluded contract and order dated 11.08.2025 is illegal, however, the applicant submitted a bid in daily newspaper dated 02.06.2025. The minimum bid price for cultivation of land was fixed at Rs.2,77,939/- p.a. However, the applicant has quoted the price of 7 of 11

Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the parties, I have gone through the record. On face of record, it prima facie appears that, on 02.06.2025, the non-applicant No.1 Board floated the tender dated 11.06.2025 in daily newspaper calling bid for allotment of the Board’s land for cultivation for a period of three years. As per the tender document, an upset price of Rs.2,77,939/- per year was fixed. The offer submitted by the applicant was found below the price of upset price of Rs.1,67,000/- against the upset price of Rs.2,77,939/-. As per the terms and conditions of the tender document, the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board having every right to cancel the tender at any point of time and the cultivation period of the land, shall be three years as per condition No.

The Chief Officer of the Waqf Board, reserved right to reduce the cultivation period.

On the face of record, it appears that, on 28.07.2025, the applicant was informed by written communication to deposit the bid amount within a period of two days and said amount would be only

Though the applicant challenged the order dated 11.08.2025, whereby the bid of Sadiq Shah Shaikh Ramzan Shah, was accepted, but he was not impleaded as party non-applicant in Waqf Application No.75 of 2025. Since the applicant accepted the communication dated 28.07.2025, wherein he was directed to deposit bid amount within a period of two days and said amount was only for one year and not for a period of three years. Therefore, respondent No.1 communicated their intention for leasing out the agricultural land only for one year. Further, no such bid amount has been credited

On 19.09.2025, the Waqf Board passed the impugned order and held that the bid submitted by the applicant is much below the minimum bid price and respondent No.1 board is having right to cancel the said contract in terms of Clause 2 and 8. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Waqf Board are just and proper and no interference is called at the hands of this Court, hence, the present First Appeal is dismissed. Pending Civil Application No.11230 of 2025 also stands disposed off. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]