Disposed

Syed Mahmood Ali v. A.P. State Wakf Board through its C.E.O.

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012PIL/131/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL regarding illegal structures on Wakf properties, the Court recorded a police report stating no construction was underway and maintained status quo, directing respondents to act within six weeks if violations are found.

What did the court decide?

Directed parties to maintain status quo; respondents to take action including demolition within six weeks if illegal construction is found.

Syed Mahmood Ali Vs A.P. State Wakf Board… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

Public Interest Litigation No.131 of 2012

¶3

DATED:17.12.2012

¶4

Between: Syed Mahmood Ali

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And A.P. State Wakf Board Through the C.E.O., Nampally, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶9

Public Interest Litigation No.131 of 2012

¶10

Order: (per the Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶11

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take action as per law against respondent Nos. 4 to 10 under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) for raising illegal structures inside the Mosque, grave yard, Dargah and Maqbara situated in Devdi Kalyani Nawab, Moghalpura, Hyderabad and to demolish the said structures. A consequential direction was also sought to the unofficial respondent Nos. 4 to 10 not to raise any constructions of any kind inside the wakf properties in question.

¶12

On 26.11.2012, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court while granting time to respondent No.1 to file counter affidavit, directed the parties to maintain status-quo and adjourned the matter for two weeks. On 10.12.2012, again when the matter came up for hearing, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader for Home to file a report in the matter by extending the order of status-quo granted on

¶13

26.11.2012. Pursuant to which, the Inspector of Police, P.S. Moghalpura, Hyderabad, the 2^nd respondent herein, has filed a report before the Court.

¶14

In the report filed by the 2^nd respondent, the said respondent has stated that no construction activities are going on in the premises in question and all the parties are maintaining status-quo orders as per the directions of the Court.

¶15

In view of what has been stated by the 2^nd respondent in the report filed by him, we only direct the parties to maintain status-quo. However, if respondent Nos. 1 to 3 find that there is any illegal construction being carried out in the properties in question, the said respondents will take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after serving notice to the affected parties, including demolition of the said structures.

¶16

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ

¶18

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶19

17.12.2012

¶20

pnb

Syed Mahmood Ali v. A.P. State Wakf Board through its C.E.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mahmood Ali v. A.P. State Wakf Board through its C.E.O.

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

Dargah Hzt. Moula Taleem Mastan (Rh), Vs Chief Executive Officer

Sri. M.Gopal, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

All India Forward Block Pary Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Pragathi Welfare Association, Vs The Government of Ap., rep. by its

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Malleswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohana Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary

N. Mohan Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh