Disposed

Syed Mohd. Asa, v. Syed Abdul Jaleel Ahel Akelvi and Another

Telangana HC20 Dec 2017CRP/284/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging a Wakf Tribunal award regarding the appointment of a Muthawalli. The Court held that since the respondent ceased to be the Muthawalli following a removal order and pending disciplinary action, the merit of the appointment claim could not be examined.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Syed Mohd. Asa, Vs Syed Abdul Jaleel Ahel… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.284 OF 2005

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2017

¶4

Between :

¶5

Syed Mohd.Asad S/o.Syed Munawar, Aged about 62 yrs, Pensioner, R/o.H.No.16-3-804, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad & others (died per L.Rs, 2 to 5) & others

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Syed Abdul Jaleel Ahel Akelvi, S/o.Late Syed Mohd. Ahel Akelvi, Aged 45 yrs, Temporary Muthawalli of Mosque Akelvi, R/o.16-3-803, Chanchalguda, Hydereabad & another

¶9

This court made the following :

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.284 OF 2005

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

In this revision, petitioner challenges the Award passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.S.No.128 of 2002. Originally petitioner complained against the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent alleging that 1^st respondent indulged in mis-appropriation of Wakf properties, declaring the properties of Wakf as personal properties and misusing the official position. It is also alleged that the 1^st respondent cannot be a Muthawalli. Based on his complaint, disciplinary action was taken against the 1^st respondent resulting in his removal by order dated 29.04.2002.

¶15

However, the 1^st respondent filed O.S.No.128 of 2002 in the Tribunal praying to declare him as Muthawali of the suit schedule Wakf Institution. The Tribunal disposed of O.S.No.128 of 2002 by order dated 27.01.2004 directing the Wakf Board to enquire from the brothers of the 1^st respondent to know whether they have any objection for the 1^st respondent to be appointed as a Muthawalli and if the brothers have no objection, the 1^st respondent has right to get himself to be appointed as Muthawalli.

¶16

Petitioner challenges this order on the ground that as there are grave allegations against the 1^st respondent, he cannot be appointed as Muthawalli and the Tribunal erred in granting relief in favour of the 1^st respondent.

¶17

¶18

During pendency of this Revision, the legal representatives were brought on record on the death of petitioner.

¶19

The legal representatives sought leave of the Court to challenge the Award of the Tribunal, as they were not parties before the Tribunal. By order dated 18.03.2014 leave as sought was granted.

¶20

By proceedings dated 29.04.2002, the 1^st respondent was removed from the post of Muthawalli. Aggrieved thereby he filed Appeal No.1 of 2002, before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed, by order dated 25.08.2007. Aggrieved thereby, he filed C.R.P.No.4447 of 2007. By separate order, the said C.R.P., is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the Wakf Board for consideration by the competent authority from the stage of submission of report of the enquiry officer. The 1^st respondent ceased to be the Muthawalli, after the order of the Wakf Board dated 29.04.2002. Unless the 1^st respondent succeeds in the pending disciplinary action, he cannot be appointed as Muthawalli.

¶21

In view of the same, the Court is not going into the merits of the contentions urged and entitlement of the legal heirs to contest the claim of 1^st respondent for appointment as Muthawalli.

¶22

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision shall stand closed.

¶24

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶25

20^th December, 2017 Rds

Syed Mohd. Asa, v. Syed Abdul Jaleel Ahel Akelvi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohd. Asa, v. Syed Abdul Jaleel Ahel Akelvi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guguloth Sridevi, R.R.Dist. Vs Gopal Reddy,Hyd

Ch.Satyanarayana, Guntur Vs T.V. Satyanarayana, Guntur and 2 Others

M.a.Azeez, Nalgonda Dist. Vs S.P. Singh, I.a.S., Hyd

T Sambaiah, Warangal Dist Vs B Mallaiah, Warangal Dist

Syed Abdul Jaleel, Hyderabad. Vs Syed Md. Asad Akaili and Anr, Hyderabad.

V. Venkatesu Vs D. Subramanyam Raju