Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
Allauddin Charities and Zakath Wakf - Appellant
Versus
Hameed Ali - Respondent
Decided On : 10-18-01
Wakf Act - Section 83 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Eviction - Jurisdiction - Whether property is wakf or not - Trust incorporated -Employee of that Society and shall be entitled to receive pay and allowance from funds of said society and service conditions of Secretaries shall be governed by regulations as may be framed by Registrar for adoption by Societies - Writ appeals are directed against order of single Judge in declaring order - Writ appeals are directed against order of single Judge in declaring the order - A. P. State Wakf Board directing eviction of petitioners from premises in question as illegal and without jurisdiction and further declaring property as not wakf property - Appeals together are being disposed of by this common judgment - For convenience sake parties will be referred to by their status in Writ Petition - Petitioners claims to be founder trustees of the said trust - They further claim that property in dispute bearing admeasuring sq yards was gifted in favor of trust by three separate deeds of settlement bearing executed by original owners - Municipality granted permission on to make constructions but same was cancelled at instance of respondent - Wakf board - Held, When Tribunal has been conferred with power to determine any dispute question or other matter relating to a Wakf or Wakf property act and acts as a Civil Court for all purposes this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction Article of Constitution cannot permit a party to bypass such statutory remedy and assign itself role of statutory authority or Tribunal by dealing with disputed questions of fact or title - It is only after issue or dispute is determined by Tribunal at first instance High court, in exercise of power proviso of Act gets jurisdiction and can go into correctness legality or propriety of such determination and may confirm reverse or modify such determination or pass such other order it may think fit - Therefore of view that unless party aggrieved of orders of CEO has availed of alternative remedy available to him Statute and Tribunal has determined issue or dispute or nature of property as provided provisions of Act this Court cannot go into question of validity of orders passed by Chief executive Officer - Writ Appeals allowed(Para 40)
( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 9434 of 2000 declaring the order dated 15. 5. 2000 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the A. P. State Wakf Board directing eviction of the petitioners from the premises in question as illegal and without jurisdiction and further declaring the property as not wakf property.
( 2 ) WHILE the 5th respondent preferred w. A. N0. 983 of 2001, the A. P. State Wakf board filed W. A. No. 1 109 of 2001.
( 3 ) WE have heard the appeals together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to by their status in the Writ Petition.
( 4 ) BRIEFLY noted, the facts are: The petitioners claim that the 4th petitioner is a trust by name Faizana-e-AI-Husnain Trust incorporated under the provisions of the trust Act and registered as such, vide document No. 21/1988 dated 22. 5. 1998. Petitioners 1 to 3 claims to be the founder trustees of the said trust. They further claim that the property in dispute bearing d. No. 21-1-1098/9, 10 and 11 admeasuring 538 sq. yards was gifted in favour of the trust by three separate deeds of settlement bearing Nos-1280/98, 1271/98 and 1272/98 dated 30. 5. 1998 executed by the original owners. The municipality granted permission on 29. 1. 1999 and 5. 3. 1999 to make constructions but the same was cancelled at the instance of the 1st respondent - Wakf board. The petitioners challenged the same in a suit before the VII Junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. S. No. 664 of 1999 and obtained interim injunction. While things stood thus, the Wakf Board issued notice dated 20. 5. 1999 calling upon the petitioners to vacate the premises on the ground that the property was a wakf property.
( 5 ) IN the notice, it was stated that macca Madina Alladin (4th respondent) is a registered wakf and notified in A. P. Gazette no. 6-A dated 9. 2. 1989 and it had property to an extent of 9,126. 06 sq. yds bearing premises N. o. 21-1-1098, Ward No. 21, rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. It was further stated that the petitioners I to 3 and one Mohd. Raoof formed a Trust with the name of faizana-e-AI-Hussanain and occupied the above land to an extent of 536. 7 sq. yds belonging to 4th respondent institution. It is also alleged in the notice that the petitioners upon encroaching the property obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad with three different assignment nos viz. , 21-1-1098/9, 21-1-1098/10 and 21-1-1098/11 for an extent of 126. 28, 130. 23 and 191. 88 sq. mts. respectively.
( 6 ) THE petitioners submitted representation to the aforementioned notice on 4. 6. 1999 stating that the property does not belong to Mecca Madina Allauddin Trust nor it was a wakf property and claimed ownership thereto. By letter-dated 1. 7. 1999, the petitioners were called upon to submit the necessary documents in proof of their alleged title to the property. The petitioners submitted the documents on 28. 7. 1999. The Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board after conducting an enquiry and after hearing the parties, by order-dated 15. 5. 2000 recorded a finding that the petitioners are encroachers and they obtained permission from the MCH by producing forged and fabricated documents.
( 7 ) IT was also recorded that the total extent of 9126. 06 sq. yds. including the extent covered by the alleged three gift deeds is a wakf property attached to wakf institution viz. , Alladin Charities and Zakath trust, Hyderabad (5th respondent) notified as wakf in A. P. Gazette No. 6-A dated 9-2-1989 at page No. 93, S. No. 2373 with shopping complex constructed covering a total area of 9126. 06 sq. yards in Ward no. 21, Block No. 21-1-1098 situated at rikab Gunj. Subsequently, the Revenue divisional Officer - 2nd respondent initiated proceedings on 24. 5. 2000 under Section 55 of the Wakf Act for eviction of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, th
CHOWK MOSQUE, NANDYAL Vs P.V.H.MAQBUL BASHA
M.Bikshapathi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh
P.Rama Rao Vs High Court A.P., rep.by Registrar (Vigilance)
JAI BHARAT CO OP.HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs A.P.State Wakf Board
Syed Muneer Vs Chief Executive Officer, A.P.State Wakf Board, Hyderabad
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.