A non-Muslim who participates in a religious rite in a Wakf property is a person interested in the Wakf within the meaning of Section 3(h) of the Wakf Act.

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE simple question that is raised in this writ petition is whether the petitioner, a non-Muslim, is a person interested in a Wakf, within the meaning of S. 3 (h) of the Wakf Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) TO answer this question it is enough if the undisputed facts are referred to. The petitioner is a non-Muslim, and he is the owner of a premises known as Bada Ashurkhana, Bandar Khana, Alawa site comprising an extent of about 60 Ankanams and buildings in Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District. The ancestors of the petitioner constructed the Bada Ashurkhana. It is also called Nagari Peerla Chavidi. The ancestors of the petitioner encouraged religious activities of all religions. They were using the above site and building for performing Moharam Festival in which the family members and the servants of the estate used to participate for the last 100 years. The petitioners family got Peerlu made of silver and gold and they have been celebrating Moharam Festival from times immemorial. After the festival they used to bring back the Peerlu from the Ashurkhana to a safe place and used to let out the premises on monthly rent to various persons. While so, the 1st respondent Wakf board initiated action for registration of the said property under S. 25 of the Act. A notice was attached to the building on 3-9-1975 calling for objections. The petitioner sent a reply on 8-9-1975 claiming title to the property. But the 1st respondent passed orders on 19-12-1975 registering the property as Wakf property. As per its proceedings in File No. A1/111/75 Andhra-988, dated 19-12-1975, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the same.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property is not wakf property, that the petitioner is the owner, and that being so the Wakf Board has no jurisdiction to decide questins of title and the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the dispute between the petitioner and the Board is not a dispute contemplated under s. 6 (10 of the Act as the petitioner is not a person interested in the wakf and that being so the dispute is between the wakf and a third party and when the third party claims title to the property the only way to get such a claim decided is by institution of a suit by the Board and that the Board cannot decide by itself the nature of the property and register it as a wakf property. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on a judgment of this court in Narsappa v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 2 Andh WR 22. It is necessary to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions which were set out in detail in the said decision and which were said to be sufficient for a determination of the points involved in all the writ petitions disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners therein are all Lambardars and claimed to be in possession of the lands having got Pattas. The Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs held and enquiry and decided that the lands in question were wakf property. The action of the Assistant Commissioner was questioned in the Writ petitions on the ground that the Commissioner of Wakfs had no jurisdiction to enquire into disputes as to whether a particular property is a wakf property or not, except the disputes raised by the persons interested in a wakf. The petitioners placed reliance on S. 6 910 of the Act and contended that the petitioners-lambardars are not persons interested in a wakf and as third parties they claim title to the property and therefore the only course left for the Board was to file a suit and get the claim settled. The Division Bench consisting of Obul Reddi, C. J. and Punnayya, J. acceded to the contention and held thus:- This section is silent about the procedure as to what the Wakf board should do in the event of a dispute between third parties, i. e. , persons other than those specified in S. 6 (1) and the Board as to whether a particula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document