The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to declare non-auctioning of disputed Wakf property as illegal. The court held that the petition was not maintainable because a suit regarding the same property was pending before the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, which had already passed a restraint order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19064 of 2013
Date:05.11.2013
Between: Badesab, S/o Late Fakruddin
..... Petitioner
And:
The State of A.P., Reptd by its Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad and six others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri Farhan Azam Khan Standing Counsel for AP.Wakf Board
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri Mirza Safiullah Baig For Sri S.M.D.Afzal Biyabani
The Court made the following: ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not putting the property admeasuring Acs.36.23 cents in Survey No.339 (old 399) and an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Survey No.355 of Puchakayalamada Village, Patikonda Mandal, Kurnool District, belonging to respondent No.3 to public auction, despite the order, dated 16.08.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.A.No.83 of 2011 in O.S.No.25 of 2011, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the property in respect of which the present Writ Petition is filed is the subject matter of O.S.No.25 of 2011 filed by his client before the Tribunal with the same grievance as raised in this Writ Petition and that an interim order was passed on 16.08.2011 in I.A.No.83 of 2011 in the said O.S., by the Tribunal restraining the respondents from giving the land on lease to third parties.
In my opinion, when the suit instituted by the petitioner for the property which is subject matter of this Writ Petition is pending, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition. If the petitioner feels that any positive direction is needed by him in addition to the restraint order passed by the Tribunal, he can as well file appropriate application before the Tribunal. The petitioner can also file appropriate application before the Tribunal for enforcement of the order passed by it, if it is his grievance that the restraint order passed by the Tribunal is not being followed by the respondents.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Tribunal.
As a sequel to dismissal the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.23309 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed infructuous.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
05th November, 2013 DR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-auctioning of Wakf property is maintainable when a suit regarding the same property is pending before the State Wakf Tribunal.
Whether the right to approach the Tribunal for enforcement of orders restricts the maintainability of a Writ Petition under Article 226 in the same context.
Badesab, S/o Late Fakruddin
The State of A.P.
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
