Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. GANGA RAO, J.
Dargah Syed Sarvaruddin Saheb – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 11522 of 2004
Decided On : 29-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.M. Qureshi
For the Respondents: S. Arifullah, SC and Ramabhoopal Reddy
Headnote:
Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 36/83/3 - Violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions - Condone delay in riling the review petition - Petitioner is managing the affairs of the Dargah on the date of registration, but the first respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry about the genuineness of the application, has registered the Dargah in question as Wakf - Questioning the registration of the Dargah as Wakf property, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court - Held, Persons other than in management and nothing to do with the Dargah and without issuing notice to the person in management, the registration of Dargah as Wakf is contrary to the provision of the Act and it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly the impugned proceedings, registering the Dargah as Wakf property is liable to be set aside - Contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the Dargah is declared as public Wakf by the Trial Court; the petitioner is not; he is not in administration and management of the said Dargah; is only a caretaker of the institution and sweeps the premises - Not entitled for any notice before registering the Dargah as Wakf property, are untenable as the petitioner was declared by the Trial Court, however held that the petitioner is not the Chief - Further, act clearly defines includes Mutawalli and is the administrator of the said Wakf - His further contention that the writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative remedy is available under Section of the Act, is untenable when the impugned action is an utter violation of the provisions of Section of the Act and in violation of principles of natural justice - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
M. Ganga Rao, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board issued in F. No. B3/33/CTR/2002, dated 7.11.2003, registering the Dargah Hazaraat Jumle Peer Shah and Dada Peer and Burial ground situated in Survey No. 224/8 of an extent of Ac. 0.91 cents and Mosque Azam situated in Survey No. 224/7 in an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents of Dargah Mitta, Panagal Village, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, as Wakf property under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') and consequential proceedings of the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad vide Proceedings No. 2/CTR/k/2004, dated 4.3.2004, appointing the respondents 4 to 14 as Managing Committee of Dargah Hazaraat Jumle Peer Shah and Dada Peer, as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 36 of the Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that about 400 years back, his great great grandfather by name Hazarat Khaja Syed Shah Jumle Peer Shah @ Symed Jumle Pir Vali Allah, attained salvation on the western banks of Swarnamukhi River at Srikalahasti. In memory of their grandfather, they established a Dargah called 'Hazarat Khaja Syed Shah Jumle Peer Shah Chistiul Khader Vali Allah and Dada Peer'. As per their custom and understanding, the eldest son shall be Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah. His father's father namely late Dargah Syed Jumle Shah being the eldest son of his father was the Sajjadanashin and in that capacity, he used to manage the affairs of the said Dargah and he expired in the year 1947. After his death, the petitioner's father being the eldest son, Sajjadanashinship devolved on him and in that capacity, he is looking after the affairs of the said Dargah. Since 1947, his father has been looking after all the affairs of the said Dargah including 'UR' and 'Gandham' functions. The Dargah has only an extent of Ac. 0.91 cents in Survey No. 224/8 of Panagal Village, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. The Dargah is existed in an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents and the graveyard is existed in an extent of Ac. 0.30 cents out of Ac. 0.91 cents. The remaining portion of the land is occupied by the third parties by constructing residential buildings. One Mr. P. Ahmad Sheriff and two others on 21.6.1982 proclaimed in their village that they are Mujawars of the Dargah and they tried to celebrate the Gandham festival. In those circumstances, he filed a suit in OS No. 342 of 1982 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti for declaration that he is the Chief Mujawar (Sajjadanashin) and he is having full authority for administration, maintenance, management of the daily pujas and celebration of Urs festival at Dargah and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with his administration, management and maintenance of the Dargah and also for performing daily pujas. His case, in the suit is that he succeeded his father as a Chief Mujawar of the Dargah, which is a religious institution where Muslims and Hindus congregate and worship and that he is the in-charge of the maintenance, management and improvement of the Dargah and the defendants are strangers and that they have nothing to do with the Dargah. He celebrated Urs from 11.6.1982 to 13.6.1982 with the help of public contributions in a grand manner. When the defendants proposed to celebrate Gandham festival and Kawali music without his permission, his supporters were objected. Thereafter, the defendants proclaimed in the village that they are the Mujawars of the Dargah and published the pamphlets that they would perform Gandham festival on 21.6.1982. The suit was dismissed on 25.3.1989 by holding that the petitioner is only a Mujawar alongwith the third defendant namely Syed Fakruddin, Ibrahim and Vali Mohammed and that the petitioner is not the Chief Mujawar. It is also held that the defendants 1 and 2 therein, who are the respondents 9
