Dismissed

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan v. A.P. State Wakf Board and Another

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CRP/2926/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice T. Meena Kumari dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Muthawalli. The court held that since the petitioner participated in the appointment proceedings and objections were called, the order had no illegality or irregularity, making the revision devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan Vs A.P. State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI

¶2

C.R.P No:2926 OF 2010

¶3

Dated: 16.7.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan

¶6

And

¶7

1. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, rep., by its Chief Executive Officer and another. .. Respondents.

¶8

This Court made the following

¶9

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2926 OF 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This revision is directed against the order, dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal in O.A.No.20 of 2003.

¶12

The revision petitioner filed the above O.A. seeking to set aside the appointment of the 2^nd respondent as Muthawalli vide proceedings No.115/H3/J1/1/92, dated 10.1.2003 and proceedings dated 8.7.2003.

¶13

The tribunal having observed that after due enquiry and publications and rejecting the claim of the applicant herein, and calling objections only, the 2^nd respondent being great grand son of Nawab Syed Abdul Haq Sahab, owner and Wakif, is appointed as Muthawalli vide proceedings dated 10.1.2003 and that the applicant has also participated in the appointment proceedings, dismissed the above O.A. Hence, the present revision is filed by the petitioner.

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner-applicant that no notice was given to him before appointment of the 2^nd respondent. Except

¶16

stating so, he did not adduce any material before the Tribunal in support of his contention. On a perusal of the material on record, it is obvious that the petitioner-applicant participated in the appointment proceedings and that the 1^st respondent after calling objections only, appointed the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

Apart from that, there is also no dispute as to the publication and calling for the objections prior to the appointment of the 2^nd respondent. In this background of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari

¶20

Date: 16^th July, 2010 Nn.

¶21

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2926 OF 2010

¶23

16.07.2010

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan v. A.P. State Wakf Board and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan v. A.P. State Wakf Board and Another

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

P. Ramamurthy Vs The land Acquisition Officer/

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Thumalluri Samuel Vs Beesa Galaiah

Apsrtc Hyderabad Vs Ahmedi Begum and Another

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., Vs Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another