Disposed

All India Federation of Sc/St/Bc and, Minorities v. Dargah Hazrath Shah Khamoosh

Telangana HC26 Jul 2013CRP/3210/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, regarding an appeal against a Tribunal judgment. The court found it improper to decide a disputed fact about the petitioner's representation below. It granted leave, directed the status quo on property construction to be maintained for two weeks, and dismissed the petition. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted; liberty to apply for review/reopening before Tribunal; status quo on property construction maintained for two weeks.

All India Federation of Sc/St/Bc and, Minorities Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3210 OF 2013

¶3

Date: 26.07.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

All India Federation of SC/ST/BC & Minorities Employees Welfare Association (Regd. No.511/1978) Sevak Nagar, Near Nampally, Hyderabad, Represented by its President, M. Srinivas, S/o. Late M.Ramachander, Age 37 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. 5-6-692, Sevak Nagar, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And Dargah Hazrath Shah Khamoosh, Represented by its Mutawalli Mr. Syed Ali Akbar Nizamuddin Hussaini, S/o. Late Syed Shah Qutubuddin Hussaini, Aged about 56 years, Nampalli, Hyderabad, and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3210 OF 2013

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This revision is filed under Section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2013 in O.S.No.22 of 2004 on the file of A.P State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶14

It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner, which is an association, was not represented before the Tribunal below and the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed without hearing the revision petitioner/first defendant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the President, who was representing the first defendant association, died after cross examination of P.W.1, and consequently there was no representation for the 1^st defendant and the suit came to be decreed without hearing the first defendant.

¶15

However, it is noticed that it was recorded in the judgment under revision that the first defendant was represented by an Advocate.

¶16

The stand taken by the revision petitioner before this Court being contrary to what was recorded by the Tribunal below, it appears to me that the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal itself by filing an application to reopen/ review the matter and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties and it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on such a disputed

¶17

question of fact.

¶18

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Tribunal below as observed above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction that the status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the construction over the Schedule property shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. No costs.

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.07.2013

¶21

Note: Issue CC in two days (B/O) MVA

All India Federation of Sc/St/Bc and, Minorities v. Dargah Hazrath Shah Khamoosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Federation of Sc/St/Bc and, Minorities v. Dargah Hazrath Shah Khamoosh

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.Ayesha Sultana Vs Mr.S.K.Ahmed

D.Dayanand, Vs M/s. Jeevan Mitra Chit Fund Ltd.

Mohd. Sadiq Ali Khan, Vs Smt Anees Fatima

Sri Gurram Srinivasa Rao Vs Nandyala Sridevi

A.Saiyulu, Vs Smt.Vani Prasad, I.A.S.

M/s Happy Home Constructions Vs Smt. Parvati Kurian