Mr. Syed Zainul Abideen Hussaini Quadri, Vs Syed Mohammed Mohiuddin Quadri

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of} the^{Letters Patent preferred against the order} dated. 12t12t2025 in W.P.No.3148^{of 2025 on the file of the High Court.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 ttIr. Syed Zainul Abideen^{Hussaini Quadri,S/o..SyeQArifullah Hussaini, Aged} aUorl'+2 years, Occ.^{Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.N6. 9-10-5, Rowshannadowla} Village, Balapur, R.R.^District.

¶12

2 Mr Syed Mohammed lmam Quadri,^s]q 9yg9^{Khusroo tt4ohiuddin,Aged} iOoui'45 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee,^{R/o. H.No.9-10-13,Rowshannadowla} Village, Balapur, R.R.^District.

¶13

Mr. Syed Azmath Quadri, S/o. Sved Nusrath Hashmi, Aged^{about 35 years,} Occ Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No 0-tO-t2, Rowshannadowla^{Village,Balapur,} R.R. District.

¶14

4." ttflr. Syed Afzal Quadri,^S/o.Syed [hajltVoinuddin,.AgPd.about^{55 years, Oc!.} piirit" emptoyee, R/o. H.No'.9-10-2, Rowshannadowla Village, Balapur, R.R. District.

¶15

It/lr. Syed Kamal Pasha Quadri,^S/o. Mahemoodullah Hussaini,^Aged iOori'+S years, Occ. Pvt.^{Employee, R/6.} -S.yed.^{H.No. 19-4-279N4,Nawab Sahab} Kunta, Hyderabad.

¶16

Mr. Syed tvlisbaullah^Hussaini Quad(^{S/o Syed WaheedullahHussaini} OJaOri-Aged aOout 45^{years,Occ. Pvt. Empioyee, R/o. H.No.19-3-14,} Jahannuma, Lancer,^HYderabad.

¶17

Mr. Syed Waliullah^{Hussaini Quadri,.S/o.Sy_ed Ahmedullah Hussainjr.4g"9} iOort'-O+ yeirs, Occ. Pvt.^{Employee, 'R/o. H.No.23-5-971A,Aliabad,} HYderabad

¶18

..APPELLANTS

¶19

AND

¶20

1 Syed Mohammed^{MohiuddinQuadri,} 9/o.^{Late Syed GhouseMohiuddin} Otatri',-'-'Age^{- SS years,Occ.Business, R/o-. H.No:17-1-1821D133,} Santoshnagar,^{HYderabad- TS.}

¶21

2 The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, Minority Department,} Secretariat Buildings,^{Saifabad,Hyderabad.}

¶22

rl ,d: r;

¶23

7

¶24

J The Nampally, TelangH aj^ana House, Hyderabad.^{State Wakf Board, Rep by its Chief ExecutiveOfficer,}

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶27

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 suspend the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.3148/2025, dt.12.12.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SMT VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ASHFAQ AHMED

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI ANANTHULA RAVI,

¶31

GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR WAQF BOARD

¶33

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶34

IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR^{THESTATEOF TEI,ANGANA}

¶35

AT I{YDERABAI)

¶36

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH I$TVIARSINGH} AND

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{G.M.MOHIUDDIN}

WRIT No.9 of 2026

DATE: o +02.2026

BETWEEN:

Syed Zarnul Abideen^Hussaini Quadri and 6 others.

¶42

....Appellants

¶43

AND

¶44

Syed Mohammed^Mohiuddin Quadri and 2 others.

¶45

....Respondents

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The present writ^{Appeal is directedagainst the order dated} 12.1.2.2025 passed by^{the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3148 of} 2025, whereby the^{learned Single Judgeallowed the Writ Petition and} set aside the^{proceedings dated18.L2.2O24issuedby the Telangana} State Waqf Board^{(for short "the Board") appointingthe appellants} (respondent Nos.3 to 9^{in the Writ Petition) as Presidentand Members} of the Towliath^{committee of Dargah Haztath Imam Ali ShahQuadri} (R.H.), Balapur, and^{further directed the Board to reconstitute the} said Committee^{consideringthe claim ofrespondent No' 1(writ} petitioner) for the^{post of President with preferentialstatus.}

¶48

2

¶49

For the sake of clarity and brevity, the parties are hereafter referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition.

¶50

Factual background (succincfly stated)

¶51

Dargah HazraLh Imam Ali Shah euadri, Balapur (for short ,the Balapur Dargah') is a notified waqf institution bearing Serial No.295g, as published in rhe Gazette dated og.o2.l9g9. Upon thc demise of the original Mutar,r,alli, disputes arose regarding succession to the office of Mutawalli. In order to resolve the said disputes, a Family compromise dated 25.o2.1960 (for short 'the compromise Deed,) was recorded in Case No.13/2 of i959.

¶52

The key terms of the Compromise Deed rvvere

¶53

1 A Tou'liath (Management) committee shall be constituted

¶54

ii. Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin euadri (father of the Writ Petitioner and grandfather of respondent No.3) shall be the President.

¶55

iii. In case of any eventuality concerning the president, his legal heirs or nominee would succeed him.

¶56

Subsequent disputes between the parties culminated in further litigation. A Division Bench of this court, by Judgment in w.A.No.23 of 1992, directed the constitution of a fresh Towliath committee strictly in accordance with the compromise Deed, while continuing Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin euadri as the chairman thereof. In

:i Ea g I *

::3

r I i i

compliance with the said directions, the^{Waqf Board constituted a} five-member Towliath Committee uide^{proceedings dated 03.04.1993.}

¶61

Upon the demise ol Syed Ghouse^Mohiuddin Quadri,^{his 2nd} son, Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri,^{who is the brotherof the writ} petitioner, was appointed as Mutawalli/President^{of the Balapur} Dargah through GazeLte Notifications^{dated 20.O1.2005and} O8.O2.2OO7. The said appointment^{made underSection63 of the} Waqf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'),^{was assailed belore the Waqf} Tribunal (for short 'the TribunalJ.^{However, the challenge was} dismissed and the appointment was upheld^{by the order dated} 16.09 .2006 in O.A.No .4 of 2005.

¶62

Subsequently, the Board appointed^{Syed SultanMohiuddin} Quadri^{as Mutawalli underSection 42 of the Act uide proceedings} dated 29.06.2012. The said appointment^{was assailed in O.A.No.45} of 2016 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal,^{by judgmentdated} Ol.lO.2O21, allowed the O.A, set aside^{the impugned appointment,} and issued elaborate directions for reconstitution^{of the Towliath} Committee in strict conformity with the^{Compromise Deed and the} proceedings dated 03.04.1993. The^{Tribunalcategoricallyheld that} the office of President shall^{be filled from the first branch, namely the} branch of Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri,^{and that the remaining} members of the committee shall be drawn from^{each of the five} branches of the family.

li T

::4ii

i.i T tI!

The order of the Tribunal was challenged in c.R.p.No. i60g of 2021. The said c.R.P. r.tas disposed of by this court on 27.og.2o23 with a modification, as follows:

¶67

"The waqf Board is directed" to constitute a Towliath Comnittee front tlrc rrtentbers of all the brarrches atrcl tlrc presld.ent shail be altpoirtted. front the fi.rst^{branrchas per} the temts of compronise d.ated 2s.02.1960 dnd. as per the direciiort of the Diuision Bench of this court in w.A.No.23 of 1992 dated 03.02.1992."

¶68

The order dated 27.o9.2o23 passed by this courr in c.R.p. No.1608 of 2o2l was carricd to the Hon'ble supreme court bylr,ay of a Special Leave Petition (sLp). The Hon'ble Supreme court disrnissed the said sLP on 16.02.2024 thereby confirming the order passed by this Court in the said C.R.p.

¶69

In compiiance of the order in the said c.R.p.No.160g of 2021, the Board issued the impugned proceedings dated 1g.12.2024 appointing respondent No.3/appellant No.l herein i.e., Syed Zainu.l Abideen Hussaini Quadri as president and respondent Nos.4 to 9/appellant Nos.2 to 7 herein as Members of thc Towliath Committee. The respondent No.3 is the grandson of syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri^(daughter's son i.e., maternal grandson).

¶70

The writ Petitioner, being the son of late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, challenged the proceedings dated 1g.12.2024 before the learned single Judge, contending that the appointment of a maternal grandson as President, overlooking him, violated the terms of the Compromise Deed, the directions of this Court and Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶71

The respondent No.3 aggrieved by the order of^{the learned} Single Judge preferred the present writ appeal. The^{primary[hrust of} the appellant's challenge is on the maintainability^{of the writ petition.} It is vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge^{committed a} jurisdictional error in entertaining the writ petition when a complete, efficacious, statutory alternative remedy by way^{of an application} under Section 83 of the Act, was available to^{the writ petitioner.On} merits, it is argued that the term 'legal heirs'in the^{CompromiseDeed} and the '[irst branch' in the Court's order are broad^{enough to include} a grandson and the Board had validty exercised^{jurisdiction under} Section 63 of the Act.

¶72

L2. The learned Single Judge, repelling the objection as^to maintainability and by relying on the^judgment in^Whirlpool Corporation u. Registrar of Trademarksr, held that the^writ petition was maintainable. On merits, it was held that the son^(writ petitioner) and the daughter's son (appellant No. i) were not equals; the son had a preferential claim. It was also held that mere^pendency of complaints against the writ petitioner could not disqualify^him without enquiry. Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the Board to^{reconstitute the} Committee, giving preference to the writ petitioner for Presidentship.

¶73

I '^{(1998) 8 SCCr}

¶74

::6::

¶75

i I I It l J I ' ij ,i I 'l l

¶76

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Ananthula Ravi, learned Govcrnment Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondenl- No.2 and Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel lor Telangana State Waqf Board appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

¶77

Submissions of learned counsel for the appeliants

¶78

L4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted:

¶79

i. That the learnecl Single Judge committed a^{jurisdictional} error by cntertaining the writ petition despite the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy undcr Section 83 of the Act. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute relating to an order of the Board. Reliance was placed on M.P. Waqf Board

¶80

a. Subho,n Shall.z, and Kanuar Singh Scini a. High Court of Delhis.

¶81

ii. That the exception in Whirtpool Corporation (supra 1) does not apply to the present case, as no violation of any fundamental right or legal right of the writ petitioner; or jurisdictional error, is made out by the writ petitioner.

¶82

2 (20061 10 SCC 696 3 (2ot2l4 SCC 307

¶83

iii. That the learned Single Judge erred in applying Article 14 of the Constitution to the Mohammedan law, religious office context. The post of President of a Towliath Committee is not a public office amenable to strict scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Board's discretion under Section 63 of the Act is wide and administrative.

¶84

iv. That the Compromise Deed and the subsequent^judicial directions use the expression "legal heirs or nominee". Under Mohammedan law, which governs the Waqf Act, and as per Section 205-A of Mulla's Principles, a daughter's son is a legal heir and is not excluded from consideration. The Board correctly interpreted that sons and grandsons (including through daughters) from the first branch are eligible.

¶85

v. That the learned Single Judge transgressed into the realm of factual appraisal, reappreciating the suitability of candidates, which is the Board's domain under Section 63 of the Act.

¶86

vi. That the Board's impugned order was passed in meticulous compliance with the directions in C.R.P.No. 1608 of 2021, which only mandated appointment from the "first branch", without specifying "son" to the exclusion of "grandson".

8

$ i: ; 'i .,i

tiu g I

Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents

¶91

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner supported the learned Single Judge's order and contended that the Board's action was in blatant violation of specific judicial directions and u,as arbitrary, thus rvarranting intervention under writ jurisdiction, by making the follou,ing submissions:

¶92

i. That the rvrit jurisdiction was rightly invoked as the Board's order rvas in flagrant violation of specific directions of this Court in c.R.P.No.i608 of 2021, which constituted a jurisdictional error. Furthermore, the appointment of the committee under the impugned order r,vas arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶93

ii. That thc core direction of this court was to appoint the President "from the first branch". The natural, ordinary and legal meaning of succession in the context of the compromise Deed, v'here the founder's intent was family-based management, mandates that the immediate male descendant (son) succeeds, not a descendant from a daughter who moves into another family line, after her marriage.

¶94

iii. That when the Board makes an appointment; its action must be non-arbitrary. Treating a son and a daughter's son as equals for this specific religious-office succession is irrational, as their degrees of relationship and lines of descent are fundamentally different.

¶95

..o..

¶96

il Z E t I

¶97

iv. That the compromise Deed aimed at^{family harmony and} preventing disputes, by clarifying lineal succession^{from the} named President. This intent is defeated^{by appointing a} maternal grandson over a Son aS a President^{of the committee.}

¶98

L6. The learned Counsel for the respondent^{No.1/writpetitionerin} support of their case has placed reliance^{on the following decisions:}

¶99

i. Whirlpool Corporation (supra¹⁾

¶100

ii. Harbanslq.l Sa.hnia and another u.^IndianOil Corporation Limited and other{

¶101

ilr. Radha Krishan Industries u. State^ofHima,cho,l Prq.d.esh and otherss

¶102

w. M/s. Godrej Sara I*e Limited v. The^{Excise and} Taxo;tion Officer-cum-Asses sing Authoritg and^others6

¶103

L7. Learned Standing Counsel for Waqf Board^{(respondentNo.3),} adopted the arguments on maintainability and added:

¶104

i. The Board, after considering all applications and^the historical context, has found that representation^{from the} flirst branch was satisfied by appointing a^{grandson as the} president and a great-grandson as a member of the Committee. The Board's decision was a bona ftde^exercise of power under Section 63 of the Act.

¶105

o lzoo:1 2 scc 107 t (zozr) 6 scc77r 6 r\4R,\ u/sc/0086/2023

¶106

::10::

¶107

ii. The alleged criminal compraints against the writ petitioner were a relevant, though not a sole factor for considering the o'erall suitability for managing a large Waqf propertli.

¶108

we have taken note of the respective contcntions urged and perused the material on record

¶109

Consideration by this Court

¶110

of t

¶111

The foremost challenge rvhich eclipses all other questions and which needs to be resolved at the threshold is the very maintainability of the underlying writ petition fiied under Article 226 in the face of Section 83 of the Act; and whether the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised writ jurisdiction in the face of the explicit statutory scheme delineated in the waqf Act. section g3 of the Act, so far as material, is extracted belo'uv:

¶112

83. Constitution of Tribunals, etc -

¶113

The state Gouernment shall, bg notift.cation in the official Gazette, constitute as monA Tribunq.ls as it mqA thini Jit, fo, the detennination of ang dispute. question or other matter-relaiing to a waqf or waqf properlg, euiction of a tenant or d.etermination of ights and obligations of the lessor and. the lessee of such propertg, uid.", this Act and define tle local limits and. jurisdiction oy iucn ribunals.

¶114

(2)Ang mutawalli person interested. in a utaqf or ana other person aggrieued bg an order made und.er this Act, ; rules mad"e tltereunder, may make an apprication within the time specified. in this Act or where no such time has been specifted., withii sich time as mag be prescrtbed, to the Tribunal jor the d.eterminqtion of ang dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf.

(3)xxtcx (4)nux

: di xI I

::11::

ja . n

(5) The Tibunal shatt be deemed to be a^{ciuil courtand shall haue} the same potuers as maa^be exercised^{by a civil courT under the code} of Ciuit Procedure, 1908⁽⁵ of 1908), uthile^{trying a sutt, or executing} a decree or order.

¶120

(6)Notwithstanding angthing contatned in the Code of^Ciuil Procedure, 1908⁽⁵ of^1908), the Tibunal^slrull follow^{such procedure} as maA be prescribed.

¶121

(7)The dectsion of tlrc Tribunal shall be final and binding^{upon the} parties to tLrc applicatiort and it shall haue^the force^{of a decree made} by a ciutl court.

¶122

Another provision having a bearing^{on this issue is Section 85}

¶123

of the Act which is extracted hereunder:

¶124

Bqr of^jurisdiction of civil^courts.

¶125

No suit or other legal proceedirtg shall he in^antg ciuil^{court, reuenue court} and ang other authoitg in respect of ang dispute,^{questionor other matter} relatirtg to ang waqf, waqf property or other matter^{which is required by or} under this Act to be determined by a Tnburwl.

¶126

2L. The Waqf Act, i995^provides a complete^{mechanism for} adjudication of disputes relating to waqfs through^{the Tribunal} constituted under Section 83. It is a settled^{principle of law that} where an efficacious alternative remedy is available^{under a statute,} the High Court would ordinarily refrain from^{entertaininga writ} petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶127

tn Rashi d Wali Beg u. Farid Pindari and othersT^{the Hon'ble} Supreme Court has held that once the^property is admitted to^{be waqf} property, any dispute arising in respect thereof, including^its management and administration shall be filed before the^Tribunal. Further, the Apex Court in W.B. Wakf Board u, Anis^Fqtma Begums, has held that:

¶128

7 1zozz14 scc 414

¶129

8 (2010) 14 SCC sB8

¶130

::12::

¶131

The dispute in tle present case relates to a wakf. In our opinion, all It rnag be rnentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a re,cent parliamentary statute wltich has cottstituted a Speciat Tribumil for deciding tlisputes relatinq to wakfs. The obuious purpose of constitutirtg suclr a iiibunal wos tltat a Lot of ccses relating to wakfs wete lteitg filed h the ccurts irt Incrut attd. tltey tDere ocanpging a lot of tirne of ail the corrrls in tlte courttry tuhiclt resulteC irt increase in pendencg of cases in the courts i-Ience, a Special T'ribunal has been ccnstitutedfor d.eciclhtg sttclt ntatters.

¶132

(errtp hasis sttp p tied)

¶133

The Flon'ble Supreme courr in Kiran Devi u. The Bihar state Sznni Wakf Board an(l otherss has held that:

¶134

Th.e jurisdiction of the High court is restricte.d. to <>rtLy exantirte the correctness' regaritg or propietg of the fincrings record.ed. bg tte wakf Tribunal.' Tlrc High Court in exercise of tlrc jurisclictiott cortfened und"i, prouiso to Sub-sectiort (9) of Section 83 of tl:te Act tloes not act as the appellate court.

¶135

The constitution Bench in subhan shalz's case (supra 2) and the three-Judge Bench in Kanutar singh satni,s case (supra 3) have unequivocally held that where a statute provides a specific forum and remedy, the parties must exhaust such remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act is exclusive and comprehensive. The exceptions carved out in whirlpool corporation's case (supra 1), namely violation of lundamental rights, breach of principles of natural justice, or complete lack of jurisdiction, are not attracted in the present case. The grievance raised relates to the interpretation of the expression "first branch" and the suitability of a candidate for appointment, u,hich are matters u,hich fall squarely within the a{iudicatory competence of the Waqf Tribunal.

¶136

e MANU/SC /O23sl2O2t

¶137

::13::

¶138

I II I 1lt

¶139

25, The reliance placed by respondent No.l/writ^petitioner on Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra 1), Harbanslal Schntor's

¶140

(supra 4), Radha Krishan Industries's case (supra 5) and M/s. Godrej Sarcr Lee Limited's (supra 6/ is misconceived and does not advance his case. The said decisions only carve out limited exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, which are not attracted^{herein. The} dispute raised pertains to matters squarely falling within the exclusive jurisdiction o[ the Waqf Tribr-rnal under Section 83 of the Act, and mere allegations of arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 are insuflicient to bypass the statutory remedy.

¶141

It is pertinent to note that Section 83 of the Act is not a mere procedural formality; it constitutes comprehensive and exclusive jurisdictional architecture for disputes pertaining to waqfs. Section 33(i) establishes the Tribunal. Section 83(2) is expansively worded, conferring upon the Tribunal^jurisdiction to determine "any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf, waqf propertg or other matter which is required ba or under this Act to be determined by a Tibunal". The expression 'any dispute'leaves no room for any doubt regarding the amplitude of the^jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

¶142

It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge's reliance on Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra 1) to bypass this statutory remedy was, with respect, misplaced. The mere assertion of a violation of a Court order or Article 14 does not, by itself, justify the exercise of

¶143

:: 14: :

¶144

a"

¶145

writ jurisdiction when the Tribunal is fu[y empowered to examine such qtrestions. The Tribunal, uid"e jwdgment clated ol.lo.2021, has already demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the compromise and the applicable law.

¶146

There was no compelling reason to by-pass this alterna[i'e remedy. The relevant portion of the decree darecl 0i.10.2o2r is extracted hcrcunder for ready reference:

¶147

This original Application is coming on this d.ag before us for finar hearing irL the presence of Mr.slted Attaf Mehclt. Ad.uocate for applicants, Mr. Asif Amjad, standing counsel for respond"ent No.l o"nd. Mr.Klnja Moiztddin, Aduocate for resportclent No.2 and. hauing stood, ouer for cottsideration till this day, this Tnburtal doth ord.erecl ancl decreed as under:-

¶148

That the original Apptication of the Applicant be ancl the same is herebg allowed;

¶149

Tlrc impugned proceedings dt.29-o6-2012 is set aside, with the follo,.uing^{dir e ctio} ns^{: -}

¶150

Respondent No.l slto.tt reconstitute the Totuliath contmittee of the subject Dargah or before O l - I 1 -202 1.

¶151

Respondent No.l for reconstitution of the Totutiath contmittee shall take ftue members i.e., one member from each branch of the Towtiath commiltee constituted uide proceedings dt.03-04- 1993, uiz.,

¶152

Janab Syed Ghause Mohiuddin euad.i.

¶153

,Ianab Faqeer Mohiuddin euadri.

¶154

Janab Sultan Mohiuddin euadri

¶155

Janab Khaja Mohiuddin euadri and

¶156

Janab Badashah Sahib Mohiuddin euadri.

¶157

The son of a member shoutn in direction No.2 aboue. or grand. son or great grand-son or a nominee mad.e from the said. branch shail be member in the neut Towliath Committee.

¶158

4)The President shalt be appointed in tLrc proceedings d.t.3-4-93, from the first brancll if there is consensu s in the members. If there is no consensus, the President shall befrom second branch" or third branch or fourth branch or fifth branch bg giuing opportunitg of consensus to euery branch as slnwn in section 2os A of Mutta's Mohemmed.an Law, mentioned in tlrc judgment. If still there is no consensus for the President of tlrc Towliath committee, respond.ent No.l shall be at libeftg to appoint ang member from Jiue branches stated. in direction No.2 aboue.

--, .. .*,?...#(--q

::15::

: t ti!

.l'r/

For resoluing ang dispute in future the bases shall^be from^the follouing^{(3) sources:-}

¶164

Compromise deed dt.25'2-1960.

¶165

Duision Bench^judgment of the Hon'ble lligh^{Courtof A.P.in} W.A.No.23 of 1992, dt.3'2'1992.

¶166

Proceedings of the Waqf Bocu'd dt.3^4'1993.

¶167

Titl the reconstituttng of the Totuliatlt Contrnittee^on or^{before 0l-11'} 202 1, tnanagement of the sttbiect^Dctrgali shall be^continuedas existing as on todag.

¶168

28 As stated hereinabove, in the present case, the^grievanceis

¶169

fundamentally about the interpretation of a family compromise and the application of the term 'first branch' to a specific^{set of family} relationbhip. These are essentially 'disputes' precisely of the^{kind, the} waqf Tribunal is constituted to decicle. The Tribunal is^{not just an} alternative forum, it is the primary and speciahzed adjudicatory^body endowed with the expertise in waqf law and Mohammedan^law, necessary to unravel such intricate famiiy and reiigious^disputes.

¶170

.^{Consequently, we hold that the Writ Petition itself was not} maintainable, and the learned Single Judge ought to have^relegated the parties to the remedy under Section 83 of the Act.^{The impugned} order is therefore vitiated by a^{jurisdictional} error.

¶171

Having held that the Writ petiLion itself was not maintainable for the reasons stated above, we considered it neither necessary not appropriate to adjudicate upon the substantive merits of the^rival contentions, including the learned Single Judge's observations regarding the terms of 'legal heirs' and 'first branch', or the^principle of Mohammedan^{Law pertaining to} succession.

¶172

:: l6::

¶173

Any observations rnade by the learned Single Judge on the aforementioned merits of the dispute, including those relating to the cligibility of a daughter's son for consideration as a legal heir under thc Compronrise Deed or Mohammedan Lavt,, are expungc(I.'lhese are complex questions intertwining the interpretation of a family settlemcnt, personal law and the Board's discretionary power under Section 63 of the Act, u,hich squarely fall within thc specialized jurisdiction of ttre waqf Tribunal under Section g3 of thc waqf Act, 1995.

¶174

we refrain from expressing any opinion, even tcntati'e, on these aspects, lest it should prejudice or pre-empt a fair ancl full adjudication of all factual and legal issues by the Tribunal. The merits of the claims of the respective parties, including the correctness of the Bo.ard's impugned order dated L9.12.2o24 are left entirel.v open for fresh and uninfluenced consideration, in accordancc rvith la,,v irv competent Tribunal.

¶175

Conclusion

¶176

For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow the writ Appeal. Accordingly:

¶177

i. The order dated L2.12.2o25 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3148 of 2O2S is set aside.

17

=; i

\ I

I j

:'

ii. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on the^{ground of} non-maintainability, due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 83 of the Act.

¶184

iii. This dismissal shall not preclude any aggrieved^{person from} seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law before^the competent forum i.e., Telangana State WaqtTribunal, subject^to all just exceptions including limitation.

¶185

iv. It is made unequivocally clear that this Court has not^expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits o[ the claim of either party concerning the constitution o[ the Torvliath Committee or on the suitability of any individual for anv post. All rights and contentions on merits are left open.

¶186

As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶187

closed' No order as to costs'

¶188

sD/- M.RAMANA KRT'HNA JOINT

¶189

//TRUE COPY//

¶190

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH (For His Lordships kind perusal) One Fair Gopy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN (For His Lordships Kind Perusal)

¶191

To,

¶192