Dismissed

Mustafa Ali v. The State of a. P

Telangana HC30 Oct 2013WP/32035/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-safeguarding of Wakf properties and communications was dismissed. The court held serious disputed factual questions exist, which are suitably adjudicated by the AP State Wakf Tribunal where a pending suit is filed. Parties were relegated to that Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; parties relegated to pending suit before Tribunal; interim order vacated.

Mustafa Ali Vs The State of a. P — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32035 of 2012

¶2

Dated 3 0 th October, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Mustafa Ali and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The State of A.P.rep.by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Vijay B.Paropkari

¶10

Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Minority Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri M.A.K.Mukheed

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been evincing any interest to safeguard Ashoor Khana, Imambada, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. The petitioners have also questioned the communications, dated 31.08.2012 and 25.09.2012, issued by respondent No.2.

¶14

This Court by order, dated 22.02.2013, granted interim direction for raising a compound wall over 1000 sq.yards of land which alone is stated to be left with the above-mentioned wakf.

¶15

Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit and also a better affidavit, wherein he has seriously disputed the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition.

¶16

At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.6, who has got himself impleaded in this writ petition, filed O.S.No.41 of 2013 before the A.P.State Wakf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of this writ petition and

¶17

has also filed I.A.No.429 of 2013 for injunction restraining the petitioners herein from carrying on any construction work, like, platforms, toilets etc., in the suit schedule property. The said IA was dismissed in view of the interim order granted by this Court with the direction to the parties to wait till this Court finally decides this writ petition.

¶18

The pleadings of the respective parties would show that seriously disputed questions of fact are involved in this writ petition. Such questions can only be conveniently adjudicated by the Tribunal before which the suit filed by respondent No.6 is pending. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. The parties are relegated to the pending suit before the Tribunal.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without adjudicating the same on merits.

¶20

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 22.02.2013, shall stand vacated W.P.M.P.Nos.40852/12 & 2789/13 and W.V.M.P.Nos.981 & 2308 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

30^th October, 2013 VGB

Mustafa Ali v. The State of a. P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafa Ali v. The State of a. P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Madan Mohan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

B. lylamma Vs The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Sri Usala Chenchurama Naidu,Poosala Chenchu Vs The Office of the District Collector

Chakilam Lalitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Mohd. Jaffer, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nadella Jayamma Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board, Rep. by its the Chief