1. Respondents in I.A.No.803 of 2006 in O.S.No.136 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), filed this writ petition, assailing the order dated 11-06-2007, passed by the Tribunal, granting temporary injunction against the petitioners.

2. The A.P. Wakf Board, and a Mosque at Kowlur Village of Kurnool District, filed the suit before the Tribunal, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondents pleaded that they are the owners of about 42 acres of land in Sy.Nos.126 and 128 of Kowlur village, which was said to have been endowed as inam to the mosque. According them, a mosque was constructed in part of the land in Sy.No.128, and major portion of the land is being utilized for agricultural purpose. It was alleged that the petitioners attempted to interfere with the possession of the respondents, over the suit schedule property, on account of the escalation of the value of lands in the neighbourhood. They also alleged that the petitioners have fabricated certain documents and tried to enter the land, with the aid of the local police, and it was ultimately urged that they are entitled to be granted an order of temporary injunction.

3. Petitioners filed counter-affidavits, opposing the claim of the respondents. An objection was raised as to the very maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the mosque was not registered. The appointment of the muthawalli was also alleged to be contrary to the prescribed procedure and local custom. They pleaded that they purchased various extents of land in Sy.Nos.126 and 128, from the original owners, several decades ago, under documents, of the years 1953, 1965, 1986, 1993, 2006, etc. It was alleged that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by raising crops, and that the suit and application were filed with a mala fide intention. They further pleaded that the respondents resorted to misuse of the process of law. According to them, in case the suit schedule property is held by any Wakf, and they are in unauthorized encroachments, the 1st respondent ought to have taken recourse to Section 54 of the A.P. Wakf Act (for short 'the Act').

4. Through the order under challenge, the Tribunal granted temporary injunction against the petitioners.

5. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that even otherwise, the order passed by it, is contrary to the record. They state that voluminous documentary evidence adduced by them, in the form of original sale deeds, pahanis for the corresponding periods, tax receipts, were ignored, and temporary injunction was granted, on the basis of assumptions and surmises.

6. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. They reiterated their contention, advanced by them, before the Tribunal, and supported the order under challenge. It is urged that the writ petition is not maintainable, and if at all anything, it is only a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that can be filed.

7. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that it is only a registered Wakf, that can maintain a suit before the Tribunal, under Section 83 of the Act, and the record does not disclose that the 2nd respondent was registered. He contends that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the suit and granting the temporary injunction, without considering the objection as to maintainability. Learned counsel further submits that the absolute title of the petitioners and their longstanding possession over the suit land, as is evident from Exs.B-1 to B-64, was totally disregarded by the Tribunal, and the order cannot be sustained either in law, or on facts.

8. Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, o