Dismissed

S.M. Basha, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

Telangana HC19 Nov 2013WP/5453/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the respondent's prevention of the petitioner from entering a shop. The Court held the existence of disputed leasehold rights required adjudication by the Wakf Tribunal, disposing of the petition without opining on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, with liberty to avail remedy before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal. Interim orders were vacated and related matters dispose

S.M. Basha, Vs The A.P. State Wakf Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5453 of 2013

19.11.2013

Between:

S.M.Basha

…Petitioner

And

The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Karibasaiah

¶11

Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Farhan Azam Khan

¶12

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri S.M.Subhani

¶13

Counsel for respondent No.3: Ms.T.Padmaja

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in preventing the petitioner from entering shop No.6, Mosque complex, Kadiri, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 not to interfere with his business of photo studio.

¶17

The petitioner claims to be running a photo studio for the last 32 years in the abovesaid shop belonging to respondent No.2, a notified wakf. He has further averred that mutawalli of respondent No.2 has refused to receive the rental amounts and issued a legal notice to him for payment of rents, that the reply notice along with the demand drafts offered by him was received by the counsel for respondent No.2 and that from 25.11.2012 onwards, respondent No.2 has been preventing the petitioner from entering his shop. Aggrieved by this action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶18

In the counter-affidavit filed by mutawalli of respondent No.2, it i s inter alia stated that consequent on the legal notice issued to the petitioner on 05.10.2012, he has voluntarily vacated the shop in question without paying the arrears, that thereafter, the mutawalli has executed a lease agreement in favour of one G.Mohammed Ali, S/o Khadarvali on 15.10.2012 and that since then, the said Mohammed Ali has been in possession and enjoyment of the shop in question.

¶19

At the hearing, Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner has not voluntarily vacated the shop in question and that respondent No.2 forcibly locked the shop and prevented his client from entering the same. He has further stated that the said Mohammed Ali, who was stated to have been given the

¶20

shop in question, has given a notarised affidavit to the effect that he is not running the said shop. However, the purported notarised affidavit has not been filed by the petitioner. On the contrary, the said Mohammed Ali filed W.P.M.P.No.9813 of 2013, wherein he has filed an affidavit, in which he has averred that he was given the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs.4,200/- by receiving an advance money of Rs.40,000/- by respondent No.2 and that an agreement of lease was entered on 15.10.2012. He has further pleaded that in pursuance of the said lease agreement, he has established an iron almirah business in the shop in question and that he is carrying on the same.

¶21

From the abovenoted facts, it is evident that there is a serious dispute on the status of the petitioner as a lessee. Both respondent No.2 and the impleaded respondent claim that the possession of the shop in question has been handed over to the impleaded respondent. In the light of the above disputed facts, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal asserting his purported leasehold rights over the shop in question.

¶22

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy before the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal.

¶23

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 22.02.2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.6792 of 2013, W.V.M.P.No.910 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.(SR)No.41633 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

__________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶25

19^th November, 2013 GHN

S.M. Basha, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M. Basha, v. The A.P. State Wakf Board

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

Sri. Manda Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Tahasildar

S.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Pathi Prakasam.S/o Kalaiah, Vs The Government of A.P.

Vavilala Sarojini, Vs The State of a.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary

Peddaboina Shivamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Sri Polama Reddy Venkata Krishna Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer