Dismissed

Mohammed Abdul Sattar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WA/827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutawalli challenged a Single Judge order relegating him to the Waqf Tribunal regarding his non-removal and appointment of a Committee over a wakf. The Division Bench, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Anis Fatma Begum that all wakf disputes must first go to the Waqf Tribunal, declined admission and dismissed the writ appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ J

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 827 OF 2024

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 2110312024 in the W.P.No. 20048 ol 2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Abdul Saftar, S/o. Late Mr. Mohammed Fageer Ahmed, Aged 73 years, Occ Mutawalli, Rl/o. H. No. 12- 2- 4181118.117, Gudimal{<apur, Asif Nagar, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, T. S.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department, Office at Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, T- S-

¶13

The Telangana State Wakf Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Razzaq Manzi, Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad, T. S.

¶14

The Adhoc Committee, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Rep. , by its President Janab Mohammad Ghousuddin, S/o. Not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ President, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S.

¶15

Janab Mohammad Ghousuddin, Sio. Not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ President, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy Diskict, T. S.

¶16

Janab Mohammad Khaja, S/o. Not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ Vice President, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangaleddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S.

¶17

Janab Syed Zakir Hussain, Sio. Not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ General Secretary, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S.

¶18

Janab Hafiz Qutub Ur Rahman, S/o. Not known to Petition er, Aged Major, Occ Treasurer, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S.

¶19

Janab Mohammad Shafi, S/o. Not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ Member, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S.

¶20

Janab Mohd Atheequddin, S/o. Not known to Petitioner, Aged tVlajor, Occ Member, Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town and District, Office at Edgah Kalabgore, Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District, T. S

¶21

jx3ir; "???!3ippliii4t{a{fl t'{"'i*lj:+e6?'%1Yil"'ii'3'"?}1"'

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 20²⁴

¶24

Petition^{undr:rSection15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{firedin support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe preasedto} suspehd the^{proceedingsFNo O lMDKCl2OlllZ- lV dated 26- 06-2023'} pending disposat^{o1'the Writ Appeal in the interest of justice and equity}

¶25

counself ortheAppelrant:sRl'383'Bt-%'#=^f#QURESHT'

¶26

REP SRI^{MD ABDULMATEEN QURESHI}

¶27

RAVI N D E R L EAR N E D G P FSHTS'SS HiTffi^{EI IX"#Jfr} ','i^{8[',,i\iXITIH}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'2:SRI MOHD' ISMAIL}

¶29

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos' 3'4&6to10:SRI MOHD' ASIF AMJAD}

¶30

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos'5&7:-}

¶31

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶32

TIIE^{HON'BLETHE ACTINGCHIEF JUSTICESUJOY PAUL} AND

¶33

THE^{HON,BLESMT' JUSTICE R'ENUKA YARA}

¶34

AP^{PEALNo.827 of2024}

¶35

'ble the^{ActingCttief JusticeSujogPaul)} JUDG^ME NT: (Per^{the Hon} Sri^{Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi' learned SeniorCounsel} representlng^{Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi' learned counsel for} the^{aPPellant;SriAna,thula Ravinder, learnedGovernment} Pleader^{for B'C'Welfare' Social Welfare a,dMinority} Welfare DePartment'^{for respondent No' 1; Sri Mohd'Ismail' learned} counsel^{for respondentNo 2; and Sri Mohd' Asif Amjad' learned} counsel^{for respondentNos'3' 4 and 6 to 10'}

¶36

Heard^{on admission'}

¶37

Learned^{SeniorCounsel for the appellant assailed the order} cated^{2r.03.2024 passed in w.p.No.2004g of 2023, whereby the} learned^{Single Judge declinedthe relief sought by the appellant} (writ^{petitioner)and relegated the appellant to avail the remedy} before^{the Waqf Tribunat' The contention of the learnedSenior} Counsel^{for the appellantis that the appellantwas appointedas} Mutawalli^{and was never removedby any expressorder in exercise}

\ \

of power^{under Sectio n 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995' In absence} thereof, the^{respondents had no authoritv,jurisdictionand} competencet-oappointaCommitteebytheorclerimpugnedinthe writ petition^{d.ated26.06.2023.By placingreliance on a Division} Bench^{judgment of the AndhraPradesh High Court in A'P'Wakf} Board v.^{Mohd- Hidyathullar and alother judgment of the} Andhra^{PracleshHigh Court in Md' Saleem Ur Rahman v'} A.P.StateWakfBoardz,thelearnedSeniorCourrselforthe appellant^{submitsthat there was no disputed question of fact and} therefore^{relegatingthe appellant to the WaqfTribuna,l was not} proper.Whenprinciplesofnaturaljusticearegrosslyviolated,the writ petition^{is maintainable.ReLiance is placed on the judgment} oftheSupremeCourtinWhirlpoolCorporationv.Registrarof Trade Marks,^Mumbaie'

¶43

Per corfira,^{learned counsel for respondent Nos'3, 4 and 6} to 1O urged^{that the directionof the learned SingleJudge is in} consonance^{with the law laid down by the Suprerne Court in} Board of^{Waqf,West Bengalv'Anis Fatma Beguma and the}

¶44

l ArR 1974 AP 287

¶45

2 2007 (41 ALD !;27

¶46

3 (1998) 8 SCC 1

¶47

4 (2OtO) t4 scc 588

¶48

¶49

court of hrst^{instance in relation to all the matters pertainingto} Waqf is^{the Waqf Tribunal and the Civil Court and High Court} should not^{straight away entertain the petition'}

¶50

Learned^{Senior Counselfor the appellantsubmits that the} aforesaid^{judgmentof SupremeCourt in Anis Fatma Begum} (supra) is^not in relation to Mutawalli^{andtherefore ls} distinguishable.

¶51

6 The parties^{have confinedtheir argumentsto the extent} indicated^{above and no other point is pressed'}

¶52

The Supreme^{Court has drawn the curtains on this aspect} in its^{judgmentin Anis Fatma Begum(supra), the relevant} portion of^{whichreads thus:-}

¶53

The dispute in the^{presentcase relates to a wakf' In our} opinion,^{all matters pertainingto wakfs should be filed io the} first instance^{before the Wakf Tribunal constitutedunder} Sectlorr 83^{of the Slakf Act, 1995 and should notbe} entertaifled^{by the civilcourt or by theHigh Court} straightaway^{under Article 226 of tb.e Coastltution of India' It} may be^{mentionedthat the Wakf Act, 1995 is arecent} parliamentary^{statute which has constituteda SpecialTribunal for} deciding^{disputesrelating to wakfs' The obvious purposeof} constituting^{sucha Tribunal was that a lot of casesrelatingto} wakfs were^{being hled in the courtsin India and theywere}

¶54

¶55

occupying a lot of time of all the courts in tl.e country which resulted in increase in pendency o[ cases in the courts. Hence, a Special Tribunal has been constituted for deciding such matters.

¶56

8 Section 83(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 states:

¶57

"83. Constitutiort of tribunals, etc._( l ) Ttre State Government shall, by notification in tfre dfficlai G;;i;, constitute as many tribunals as it maj. think fit, for i;; determination of any dispute, question or othe:: matter r€lating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act arld dehne the local limits and luriidiction ,ra.. tt," e.t o? each of such Tribunals."

¶58

Section 84 of the Act states:

¶59

"-84. -T>ib-unal to hold proceedlngs expeditiouslg d.nd

¶60

to_ furnish to the parties copies oj its aeciJion.l Whenever an application is made to i tribunal for ihe determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or walrf propert5r it shall hold its proceedings as expeditiously as possibie and shall as soon as practicable, on the conclusion of the hearing of such matter give its decision in writing and lurnish^"" .opy oi such decision to each of the partie; to the dispute.,,

¶61

Thus, the Wakf Tribunal can decide all disputt:s, questions or olher matters relating to a wakf or wakf propert.. The words an dispute , question or glLher matters relatin to a wakf or wakf proDert'y'' a_re, ln our oprnlon, words of very wide connotation Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever ald in whatever manner which arises relating to a wakf or rvakf property cal be decided by the Wakf Tribunal. The word "wakf has treen defrned in Section 3({ of the Wakf Act, 1995 and hence once r:he property is found to be a wakf property as defined in Section 3l{, then arry dispute, question or other matter relating to it should be agitated beforr: the Wakf Tribunal.

¶62

Under Section 83(S) of the Wakf Act 1995 the Tribunal has zrJl powers of the civil court under the Corle of Civil

I I

tr,

Procedure, and hence^{it has also powersunderOrder39 Rules l,} 2 atd 2-A of the Code of Civil^{Procedure,1908to grarttemporarJr} injunctions and^{enforce suchinjunctions. Hence, a full-fledged} remedy is available^{to any party if thereis aly dispute,question} or other matter relating^{to a wakf or wakf property."}

¶67

(Emphasis supplied)

¶68

A^{ptain readingofthe above paragraphs arrd,more} particularly, the^{highlighted portion shows that the Supreme} Court, in no uncertain^{terms, made it clear that in relationto all} the matters^{pertaining to Waqf, the Court of first instance should} be the Waqf Tribunal^{and the High Court and the Civil Court} should not straightaway^{entertain the petition.In view of this} binding^{judgment, consideringthe disputes relatingto Waqf,the} judgment of Whirlpool Corporation^{(supra) is of no assistanceto} the appellant.^{So far the judgmentsof the AndhraPradesh High} Court cited^{by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellantin} Mohd. Hidyathulla^{(supra) and Md. SaleemUr Rahman(supra)} are concerned,^{both the judgmentswere passedbefore ttle binding} judgment of the Supreme Court in Anis Fatma Begum^(supra) was pronounced.^{Thus, in view of the dicta in Anis Fatma}