Dismissed

Mohammad Yousf, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Telangana HC12 Oct 2012WP/31733/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed writ petitions challenging eviction orders. It held that disputes concerning whether property is wakf or the type of wakf fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal under Sections 6 and 83(2). Petitioners were relegated to the Tribunal, with orders suspended for one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners relegated to A.P. Wakf Tribunal; eviction orders not to be given effect for one month.

Mohammad Yousf, Vs The Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.31658, 31706, 31727, 31733, 31760 & 31763 of 2012 Date : 12-10-2012

¶2

W.P.No.31658 of 2012 Between: Sayed Mumthaj Ali .. Petitioner And

¶3

The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioner : Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : --

¶5

The Court made the following:

¶6

COMMON ORDER:

¶7

This batch of Writ Petitions is filed for a mandamus to setaside proceedings of respondent No.1 in F.No.87/Prot/Hyderabad/2012, dated 17-9-2012, issued under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short "the Act"), whereby eviction of the petitioners is ordered.

¶8

In the light of the plea raised by the petitioners that no enquiry was held before the impugned orders were issued, this Court has called for the record from respondent No.1. Accordingly, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, has placed before the Court the summary enquiry proceedings conducted by the latter whereby it is stated that notices were issued to all the encroachers for hearing and production of documentary evidence on 25-42012, but the encroachers have neither attended the enquiry nor submitted any documentary evidence.

¶9

Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, learned counsel for the petitioners, seriously disputed the above statement. Under Section 6 of the Act, if any question arises whether a particular property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs is wakf property or not, or whether a wakf specified in

¶10

such list is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf, the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf or any person interested therein may institute a suit in the Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final. Under Section 83(2) of the Act, any mutawalli, person interested in a wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under the Act or the rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in the Act or where no such time has been specified, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Wakf.

¶11

In the light of the above mentioned statutory provisions which confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Wakf Tribunal constituted for adjudication of the disputes relating to the wakf property, it is appropriate that the petitioners approach the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal against the eviction orders passed by respondent No.1. Indeed, at the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that one of the persons against whom eviction order identical to the impugned orders was passed has already approached the Wakf Tribunal questioning the same.

¶12

In view of the above, the petitioners are relegated to the A.P. Wakf Tribunal for questioning the impugned orders. To facilitate them to seek appropriate interim orders before the Tribunal, it is directed that the impugned orders shall not be given effect to for a period of one month from today.

¶13

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.40382, 40434, 40468, 40474, 40504 and 40507 filed in the respective Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶15

Date : 12-10-2012 AM

Mohammad Yousf, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Yousf, v. The Chief Executive Officer

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

Gutha Narsaiah Vs Nallani Pedavemgulappa

Chellaboyina Diwakara Rao, Vs Nuni Ramesh Babu (Died)

C. Jhansi Laxmi Vs Kothapalli Venkatappa Naidu

S.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation/Registrar of

Professor S.K. Sood Vs National Council of Educational Research and Training

Penumatsa Srirama Raju Vs Sri P.Srinivas