Dismissed

Mohd. Ismail Kauser, v. Telangana Wakf Board

Telangana HC4 Feb 2016WA/75/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the single judge’s order dismissing a petition regarding encroachments on Wakf property. The High Court declined to interfere, holding the issue was sub judice, and allowed the appellant to seek impleadment or remedies under the Wakf Act, 1954.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant allowed to apply for impleadment or seek remedy under Wakf Act, 1954.

Mohd. Ismail Kauser, Vs Telangana Wakf Board — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No. 75 OF 2016

¶5

04-02-2016

¶6

Between: Mohd. Ismail Kauser

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

And Telangana Wakf Board, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶11

WRIT APPEAL No. 75 OF 2016

¶12

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 03-12-2015 passed in Writ Petition No.39268 of 2015, whereby learned single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition allowing the appellant to make an application for his impleadment in Writ Petition No.28944 of 2014.

¶15

In the instant writ petition, the appellant prays for mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 i.e., Wakf Board in not removing the encroachments made by respondent No.3 and not demolishing the unauthorised construction made by him in the property, which according to the appellant belongs to the wakf, as illegal and arbitrary. Learned Judge after having considered the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, and after having noticed that Writ Petition No.28944 of 2014 has been filed by respondent No.3 against the notice issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for demolition of the very same unauthorised structure referred to in the present writ petition, disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:

¶16

“In my opinion, when the issue raised in the Writ Petition is already sub judice in another Writ Petition, it is not permissible for the petitioner to institute this Writ Petition touching the same subject matter. If the petitioner is so interested, he can pursue the said Writ Petition and in the

¶17

event of its dismissal, he can approach respondent No.1 for resuming the action already initiated by it.” In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned single Judge. It is open to the appellant to make an application seeking impleadment in the said writ petition. More over, the appellant can also take a remedy, if any, under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 for redressal of his grievance.

¶18

The writ appeal is dismissed.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶20

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

________________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J 04-02-2016 ks

Mohd. Ismail Kauser, v. Telangana Wakf Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ismail Kauser, v. Telangana 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

Kanakam Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Ravula Shankar, Vs Bongoni Kumar

M/s. Jeedimetla Communication, Vs The Commissioner, Quthbullapur Municipality

Smt. Chintapalli Manju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Lubna Sarwath Ph.D., Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. Hameed Sultana, Vs The District Collector