B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondents- wakf Board dated 31-8-1996 under which an ad hoc committee consisting of nine members is appointed for a period of one year from the date of the order to manage the affairs of the Jamia Mosque, Orvakal, Kurnool District. The said proceedings are obviously issued by the respondent-Wakf Board in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Wakf Act, 1995, for short the act .

( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner herein claims to be a Muthawalli of the Mosque in question which is admittedly a Wakf. Petitioners 2 to 5 claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased hereditary Muthawalli. It is asserted that the petitioners herein are jointly managing and maintaining the Mosque and providing all amenities to the residents and Muslim families in the village. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the duties of Peshimam and Maozam are being performed by one of the petitioners as per convenience.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the respondents-Wakf Board without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Sections 44 and 45 of the Act (corresponding to Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, 1995) issued orders appointing and constituting the 2nd respondent Ad hoc committee for one year. The same is stated to be contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. It is stated that as long as the petitioners continue as the Muthawallis, no Ad hoc committee could have been appointed without removing the petitioners as Muthawallis and that too after due enquiry as provided for by the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is stated in categorical terms that there are as many as 12 Muthawallis including the 1st petitioner herein in respect of this Institution as per the Notification published but all of them except the 1st petitioner died long back and the heirs of the deceased Muthawallis without rendering any service to the Mosque are enjoying the Wakf properties. The president, District Wakf Committee submitted a detailed report stating that the notified Muthawallis died long back and the kith and kin of Muthawallis have divided the properties among themselves and left the Mosque at the mercy of the others. There is no dispute that vast extents of properties ad measuring Ac. 77-22 cents are granted under title deed No. 594 and notified as Wakf land in A. P. Gazette dated 24th October, 1963. The Wakf Board is constrained to appoint the 2nd respondent Committee to manage the affairs of the Mosque as none of the legal heirs of the deceased Muthawalli and the 1st petitioner Muthawalli were taking any interest in the management of the mosque. There is also no dispute that petitioners 2 to 5 are yet to be recognised as Muthawallis and the 1st petitioner alone is the recognised Muthawalli.

( 5 ) THERE is also no dispute that there is no evidence of petitioners managing the mosque and properties in question and rendering any service to the mosque. There appears to be no correspondence whatsoever between the petitioners and the Wakf Board. No budget appears to have been prepared by the petitioners as is the requirement of law. There is no information as to how and in what manner petitioners 2 to5 are inducted into the management of the Wakf in question. At any rate the change in the management is not notified by the petitioners under the provisions of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is required to notice that Section 64 of the Act gives power to the Board to remove a Muthawalli from his office for the reasons enumerated therein. The same provision however, mandates that no action shall be taken by the board for the removal of a Muthawalli unless it has held an enquiry into the matter in a prescribed manner and the decision has been taken by a majority of not less than 2/3rds of the members of the Board. Sub-section (3) of section 64 of the Act, in my consider

Click Here to Read the rest of this document