Allowed

Md. Shakeel Khan v. Md. Ghouse

Telangana HC2 Dec 2024CRP/1207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a revision petition against the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's impleadment petition despite evidence of his appointment as Mutawali via Gazette Notification and Waqf proceedings, finding him a necessary party.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order of the Tribunal set aside; petitioner declared as just and necessary party.

Md. Shakeel Khan Vs Md. Ghouse — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^33Bs I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1207 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 15-02-2024 made in l.A.No. 884 ol 2023 in O.S.No.452 of 2016 on the^file of the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Md. Shakeel Khan, S/o. Late Salabath Khan, Aged abott 54^years, Occ Mutawalli, R/o.^'13-6-654, Ashoor Kana Punch Bhai^(Alawa), Situated at Karwan Sahu, Hyderbad

¶10

...Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Proposed Party AND

¶11

Md. Ghouse, S/o. Md Hanrmeduddi, Aged about 37^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 13-4-615/A, Kulsumpura, Near Managing Committee, Alawa Punch Bhai, Hyderabad

¶12

...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff

¶13

District Collector, Hyderabad City, Address. 5-8-505, Chirag Ali Lane, Karimabad Cooperative Society, Abids, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰¹

¶14

Revenue Divisional Officer

¶15

Mandal Revenue Officer, Address 10-2-317127 , PCR Road, Laxmi Nagar, Vrjaynagar Colony, SBH Colony, Hyderabad^- 500057

¶16

H.E.H The Nizams Wakf, Rep. by its Secretary,^{Beside Masjid-e-Joodi, King} Kothi, Hyderabad

¶17

The Telangana State Waqf Board, Rep. by^{its Chief Executive} Officer,^Office at Haj House, Razzack Manzil, Opp. Public Garden Road, Nampallv, Hyderabad (Proforma Party)

¶18

...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O S.No. 452 of 2016 on the file of the Hon,ble Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad pendihg disposal of the above C.R.p.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶22

Sri Sankalp Pissay

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No 5 Smt Aarifa lmran Khan

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No 6 Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hasan Standing Counsel

¶25

The Court made the following Order :

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.12O7^{OF 2024}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present revision petition is hled being^{aggrieved by} the order dated 15.02.2O21 passed in IA.No.884^{of 2023 of 2022} in O.S.No.452 of 2016 on the file of^{TelanganaStateWaqf} Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The^petitioner herein/proposed party filed the said^{IA., under Order I Rule10} of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPCJ^{praying to implead him} as defendant No.6 in the suit

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that^{the revision petitioner} is the Mutawali of Ashoorkhana Punch^{Bhai (Alawa),situated at} Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad, as^per his appointment^notiliedin the official gazette. His appointment^{was challenged but} ultimately the same was confirmed^{by the AndhraPradesh State} Wakf Tribunat in the year 2016.^{However, respondent No.1 filed} O.S.No.452 of 2016 before the^{Tribunal, seeking declaration,} recovery of possession, and^{permanentinjunction regarding the} said Waqf property, with respondent^{No. 5 falsely described as} the Mutawali. After hearing both^{sides, the Tribunaluideorder}

¶31

¶32

SKS,J C.R.P.No. 1207 of 2024

¶33

¶34

dated 15.02.2021 dismissed the said IA. Aggrieved rhereby, this revision petition is filed.

¶35

Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel f<rr petitioner, and Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hussain, learned stalding counsel for Waqf Board, appearing for respondent No.6, ald Smt Aarifa Imran Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.S.

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to facts and law and contended that the Tribunal failed to consider crucial documents, including proceedings published in the oflicial gazette, which confrrms the appointment of petitioner as Mutawali of the Ashoorkhana Punch Bhai (Alawa) on O4.O2.2OO5. He asserted that the receipts from the Telangana State Waqf Board, evidencing payment of Waqf funds, a-lso identiff the petitioner as the Mutawali of the suit schedule property and that the petitioner was a party to O.A.No.24 of 2O05, which was fiIed by His Exalted Highness The VIII Nizam of Hyderabad, which was subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.04.2O16, confirming the appointment of petitioner as Mutawali. He lamented that the Tribunal erred in recording that

¶37

SKS,.' C.R.P.No.1207 of 2024

the petitioner failed to disclose as to why^{he intendsto implead} himself in the suit and averred that it was^{clearly stated in the} affidavit that the^plaintiff and^{defendant No.4 are in collusionto} usurp the suit schedule^{property, due to whichhe is proper and} necessary party to the suit. He^{incessantly contended that the} Tribunal has wrongly held that the^{application of petitionerwas} filed at a belated stage, and reiterated^{that there is no limitation} period for filing an application to implead^{oneselfin a pending} suit. He avowed that the only^{relevant questionfor} consideration of implead^{petition needs to be whetherthe} petitioner is a proper and necessary^{party to the suit. Therefore,} while advocating that there are^{inirrmitiesin the impugned} order, prayed this Court to^{allow the revision petition, setting} aside the order under challenge.

¶42

Per contra, learned standing^{counsel appearingfor} respondent No.6, and^{learnedcounsel for respondentNo's,} respectively, opposed the^{submissionsmade by learned counsel} for petitioner and contended^{that the petitioner has faiied to} provide the date of the^{proceedingsand details ofhis} representation and appointment^{as Mutawalliofschedule} property. They contended that despite^{respondent No.5 beinga}

¶43

SKS,J C.R.P.No. 1207 of 2024

¶44

¶45

¶46

local person and was legally appointed Secretary of the H.E.H, a Waqf created by H.E.H The Nizam of Hyderabad, he had no knowledge of the petitioner discharging duties as Mutawalli of the Waqf institution. Further, that the motive of petitioner is to grab the property, and the implead petition was one such attempt to achieve the goal. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition.

¶47

Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is note& that the petitioner filed IA.No.884 of 2023 of 2022 in O.S.No.452 of 2016 under Order I Rule 1O of CPC and whenever a petition is frled under Order I Rule 10 ofCPC the petitioner has to show that he is just and necessary party to the suit and no relief can be granted to the existing parties, without his presence in the suit.

¶48

7 . In the case on hand, the limited grievance of petitioner is that he is necessary party to the suit, in view of him being Mutawali of the schedule properties which was clearly mentioned in Telangana Gazette Notification No. 13 dated 26.03.2020 artd that he was even made party to the OA filed by His Exalted Highness VIII Nizam of Hyderabad, which was

¶49

SKS,J C.R.P.No.l207 of 2024

¶50

¶51

)

¶52

subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal on 11.O4.2016, confirming his appointment as Mutawali.

¶53

On going through the order dated 11.O4.2O16 passed in the said OA., it is seen that the same was dismissed, confirming the appointment of petitioner who was respondent No.3 in the OA., as Mutawali, observing that the Note File, as well as, draft proceedings and other relevant documents in the hle clinchingly shows that the decision to appoint the 3'd respondent as Mutawali was in fact taken by the Special Officer tf th" w"t t Board and with his approval only the impugned proceedings were issued by the Chief Executive Officer who was competent to issue the proceedings appointing him as Mutawali.

¶54

\ \

¶55

Further, on perusing the Telangana Gazette Notification No.13 dated 26.03.2020 and proceedings dated 17.O2.2O2O it is clearly seen that the petitioner was appointed as Mutawali^to the schedule property under Section 42 of the Waqf Act, 1988 and several relevant documents mentioned thereof, were filed before the Tribunal, as well, but the Tribunal did not appreciate the said documents and dismissed implead petition^by

¶56

.T :

¶57

¶58

e ,K.Y.ItO. t2l' / ot 2024

¶59

()

¶60

observing that no documents or evidence was placed to show that the petitioner was'Mutar,r'ali of the schedule propert5r.

¶61

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in not considering the documents filed by petitioner to show his appointment as Mutawali to the schedule property and proceeding wittr OS.No.452 of 2016 without impleading the petitioner, would cause grave prejudice. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order, as the petitioner is just and necessary party to the said suit.

¶62

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is aikrwed, setting aside the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Tribunal in IA.No.884 of 2023 of 2022 in O.S.No.4S2 of 2Ot6. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶64

stand closed.

¶65

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGIS rRAT //TRUE COPY// 4t SECTION OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

1 The Telangana^{StateWaqt Tribunal, Hyderabad}

¶68

2 One CC to Sri^{Sankalp Pissay,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶69

a One CC to Smt Aarifa lmran^{Khan, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶70

Ylr

¶71

4 One CC to Sri Habeeb Jaffar^{Bin Hasan, Standing Counsel IOPUC]} 5 Two CD Copies

VAJgh

HIGH COURT

DATED:02112t2024

1 \re S TA T €
P
,t
f c
2 3 [t[ zt'tl -b
,J .a
*
I
OE S PpI

ORDER

CRP.No.1207 of 2024

ALLOWING THE CRP

'Vr
"-tqa
6\0*

Md. Shakeel Khan v. Md. Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shakeel Khan v. Md. Ghouse

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

Alipeddi Sathi Reddy Vs Alipeddy Venkat Reddy

Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Vs Next Education India Pvt. Ltd.

Lade Linga Rao Vs M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.

B. Krishna Vs Guduguntla Kotaiah

Goutham Vs K.Rajender Goud

K. Ram Mohan Rao Vs Sai Kanna