Partly allowed

Abul Kalam Welfare Society, v. The State Telangana

Telangana HC13 Apr 2017WP/13095/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Welfare society moved this writ petition alleging illegal construction on wakf property by the fourth respondent. The High Court directed the Wakf Board to inquire into the allegations and report, noting the petitioner had failed to prove ownership or seek prior information.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent (Wakf Board) to inquire into allegations of illegal construction and report; petitioner directed to approach the Board.

Abul Kalam Welfare Society, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 13095 OF 2017

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

The petitioner claims to be the welfare society espousing the cause of the muslim community. Its grievance is that the 4^th respondent is making illegal construction over the wakf property admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Survey Nos. 508 and 509, adjacent to Sadashivpet Eid Gah, Medak District. The petitioner made a complaint dated 25.02.2017 to the 2^nd respondent Municipality to take action against the 4^th respondent, but so far, the same has not been attended to. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Wakf Board.

¶5

In the case on hand, the petitioner has not placed before this Court any material to show that the property over which the 4^th respondent has allegedly been making construction belongs to the 3^rd respondent Wakf Board. The petitioner has not even made any attempt, it appears, to approach the 2^nd respondent under the Right to Information Act, seeking information as to whether the 4^th respondent has obtained any permission to make constructions.

¶6

However, since the petitioner has made an allegation that the subject property is a wakf property and the 3^rd respondent, being the statutory authority, is under an obligation to ensure protection of the wakf properties, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to inquire into the allegations of the petitioner and if they are found to be true, necessary relief from the

¶7

¶8

appropriate authority may be sought to protect the interests of the wakf property. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the 3^rd respondent to take necessary action by furnishing the information available with it. No costs.

¶9

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶11

13^th April 2017

¶12

ksld

Abul Kalam Welfare Society, v. The State Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abul Kalam Welfare Society, v. The State Telangana

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

Syed Qasim Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

P.Vijaya Vs State of Telangana

V. Raghavaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs Samalkot Municipality

Mangalarapu Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana