Dismissed

Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri v. Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014CRP/6594/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Justice L. Narasima Reddy, heard Civil Revision Petitions challenging the High Court Tribunal's suspension of an appointment of a Muthawalli. The court found no merit in the revisions and dismissed them, directing the Wakf Board to constitute a Committee.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed; petitioner directed to constitute a Committee; no order as to costs.

Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri Vs Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6594 OF 2012 & 640 OF 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner – Wakf Board appointed the 3^rd respondent as a Muthawalli for the Wakf, by name, Hazrath Imam Ali Shah Quadri (R.H.), Balapur, Ranga Reddy District, through proceedings, dated 29.06.2012. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.55 of 2012 before the Andhra Pradesh Wafk Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), challenging the said order. According to them, the father of the 3^rd respondent, by name, Late Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, who at one point of time acted as Muthawalli, was found to be not acting in the interests of the Wakf and that in his place a Committee was constituted way back in the year 1969. They submitted that even after the members of the Committee expired,

¶4

no steps were taken to constitute another Committee and instead the 3^rd respondent was appointed as Muthawalli. They have also filed I.A.No.1018 of 2012 with a prayer to suspend the operation of the order, dated 29.06.2012. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal through order, dated 19.11.2012, allowed the I.A. The 3^rd respondent in C.R.P.No.640 of 2014 filed separate revision, being C.R.P.No.6594 of 2012 against the said order. Hence, these revisions.

¶5

Heard Sri Mir Masood Khan and M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the Wakf Board, Sri Mohd. Ilyas, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶6

It is a matter of record that before the 3^rd respondent was appointed as Muthawalli, there did not exist any exclusive Muthawalli for the institution. A Committee of Management was appointed by the petitioner and though all the members of the Committee expired, no

¶7

steps were taken to reconstitute it. In the meanwhile, several claims were being made by the office. When that was the situation, the Board ought to have verified the claims and decide the matter in accordance with law. The Tribunal took note of these developments and suspended the order of appointment of the 3^rd respondent as Muthawalli. This Court does not find any merit in these Civil Revision Petitions.

¶8

Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner – Wakf Board to constitute a Committee to administer the affairs of the Wakf till the disposal of the suit.

¶9

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions filed in the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand disposed of.

¶11

___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶12

15.09.2014 KH

Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri v. Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri v. Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri

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

D.Krishna Vs Union of India

Sri Mahalakshmi Mines and Minerals, Vs Dr.Anup K.Pujari

Fatima Begum Vs Fatima Begum Zohra

Manoj Jain Vs Vamsi Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

The A.P. State Wakf Board Vs Syed Mohd. Imam Quadri

L.Pandu Ranga Reddy Vs Rajendra Sinhji Institute