1. The two petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare O.S.No.1 of 2010 filed by first respondent on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal is not maintainable. In effect they seek a writ of Prohibition against the Tribunal on the ground that it has no jurisdiction.

2. The brief fact of the matter with reference to the allegations made by petitioners is as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.1.25¾ guntas situated at survey No.90 of Bandlaguda Jagir Village of Rajendranagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District is the property of Mohammed Yousuf. He also had land in survey No.89. It is alleged that he had obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 10.2.1977 under Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Mohammed Yousuf’s successor Syed Turab Hussain sold the land under registered sale deed dated 02.12.2006 to Dilshad Jah. Petitioners, statedly, entered into registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 05.6.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- and obtained possession. First respondent filed O.S.No.1 of 2010 against petitioners herein (defendants 1 and 2) and respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 3 to 5) for a decree directing eviction of defendants from land admeasuring 9,030 Sq.yards i.e., Acs.1.25¾ and consequent delivery of possession to Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. In the said suit, he alleged that total extent of land admeasuring Acs.14.34 guntas in survey No.90 is notified in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 09.2.1987 as Wakf belonging to Dargah Hazrath Malang Shah and Mosque. Petitioner however contends that same is not registered Wakf and the same is not entered as such in any register maintained by the Office of Commissioner of Wakfs under Section 25 of the Wakf Act 1955 or under Section 37 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act). Therefore it is contended by petitioner that suit is barred under Section 87 of the Act as the property is private property of the petitioner.

3. This Court heard Senior Counsel for petitioners and the Standing Counsel for Wakf Board.

4. The submission that the suit is barred under Sections 6 ad 87 of the Act, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Third respondent as person interested filed a suit seeking eviction of petitioners in respect of the entire property of Acs.14.34 guntas. Petitioners who claim a right under registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA in respect of the property cannot prohibit a statutory Tribunal from dealing with the suit. The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all powers under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit or executing decree. Therefore petitioners can as well file application praying the Tribunal to decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. If any adverse order is passed, they can file revision under Section 83 (9) of the Act. When the Tribunal does not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction, it cannot be prohibited from entertaining the suit.

5. Insofar as the question that the Wakfs being unregistered a suit is barred is concerned, a reference may be made to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Allauddin Charities And Zakath Wakf v Hameed Ali 2002 (1) ALD 67 (DB), 2002 (2) ALT 534 (DB) wherein it was observed as under.

A writ of prohibition can be issued only when three conditions are satisfied, namely, 1) that the authority against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi judicial power, 2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorised by law and 3) that it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists. It is provided for an extraordinary remedy and can be issued only in cases of extreme necessity. Before such writ is issued, the Court must arrive at a finding that the party aggrieved had applied in vain to the inferior Tribunal for relief. It is also trite that a writ of prohibition is not to be claimed as a matter of right but the same is granted