Dismissed

Mir Mohammed Habibullah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Telangana HC17 Apr 2007WP/23734/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the non-appointment as mutawalli of a specific wakf property, the Single Judge dismissed the petition. Finding that the petitioner failed to establish succession rights per the enquiry report and that the writ petition lacked merits, no direction was issued for appointment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no costs.

Mir Mohammed Habibullah Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 23734 OF 1998

¶3

Dated 1 7 th April, 2007

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mir Mohammed Habibullah …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, Opp. Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of the respondent – A.P. State Wakf Board in not appointing the petitioner as mutawalli of Mosque and Darga Hazrat Chanda Hussaini situated at Vengalapuram village, Adoni Taluq of Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

The mosque and Darga Hazrat Chanda Hussaini is a registered wakf under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954. It is stated that the said wakf was notified in the A.P.Gazette on 2.5.1963 at Sl.No.1463. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s late father was the mutawalli of the said Darga and mosque and after the demise of his father, the petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent for appointment as mutawalli by enclosing no objection from his two brothers and legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adoni, pursuant to which, proceedings in R1/72/KNL/86, dated 12.8.1993 were issued asking the petitioner to publish in the paper calling for objections on his application. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though no objections have been received, no orders are being passed appointing the petitioner as mutawalli and the same is without any valid reason.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated that pursuant to paper publication on the application of the petitioner, objections were invited and objections were received from two other claimants. In view of the said objections, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report stating that the petitioner had not established his right for appointment as mutawalli

¶11

of the institution in question. It is further stated that even the other objectors also did not establish their rights. As such, the enquiry officer, in his report, had recommended to take the institution under the direct management of the Wakf Board to safeguard the wakf and to take action to get the encroachers evicted from the wakf property. It is also stated that the matter could not be placed before the Board as the Board itself was superseded. It is stated that, in any event, in view of the establishment of the Wakf Tribunal, the petitioner can as well agitate his rights before the said Tribunal and in view of the said alternative remedy the writ petition is also not maintainable.

¶12

From the counter-affidavit filed, it is clear that even the petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner. As per the report of the enquiry officer, it appears, a finding is recorded that the petitioner has not established his right for appointment as mutawalli. Though it is the case of the petitioner that he is having successory right for appointment as mutawalli, but no material is filed in support of his claim, except, his own assertion in the affidavit. In that view of the matter and in view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as stated in the counter affidavit, while it is open for the respondent-Wakf Board to pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, no direction can be given for appointment of the petitioner as mutawalli in this writ petition.

¶13

The writ petition, which is devoid of any merits, is dismissed. No costs.

¶14

_____________________ 17-4-2007

¶15

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶16

Mir Mohammed Habibullah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Mohammed Habibullah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. and Sri Patan Hussain Khan Memorial Education Society, Vs The Vice-Chancellor

Thondavada Munichandra Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Smt. and Sri Patan Hussain Khan Memorial Educational Vs The Vice Chancellor

S. Noorie Vs Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada

Farooz Ghazala, Vs Dr.Ntr Universityof Health Sciences, Vijayawada

Shankar Singh Vs The Municipal Council