The Board has the power to appoint a Mutawalli under Section 42 of the Wakf Act, 1954, when there is a vacancy in the office of the Mutawalli and there is no one to be appointed under the terms of the deed of the wakf, or where the right of any person to act as Mutawalli is disputed.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramala, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. M. Layeeq Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2ndRespondent in issuing impugned proceedings in file No. 02/RR/M/2020 dated 30.05.2023 thereby recognizing the services of the 4th Respondent as Mutawalli under Section 42 of the Waqf Act in respect of Dargah Hazrath Amanullahsaheb, Qutub Shahi Mosque together with its attached land at Hameedullah Nagar, Shamshabad Ranga Reddy District without following the orders dated 17.03.2021 in W.P. No. 5878/2021 of the High Court for the appointment of the petitioner as Mutawalli as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Provisions of the Wakf Act 1995, Rules 2000, Article 14 of Constitution of India and Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the impugned proceeding in file No. 02/RR/M/2020 dated 30.05.2023 recognizing the 4th Respondent as Mutawalli under Section 42 of the Waqf Act in respect of Dargah Hazrath Amanullahsaheb, Qutub Shahi Mosque together with its attached land at Hameedullah Nagar, Shamsabad Ranga Reddy District.

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:

(a) A Waqf Institution by name Dargah Hzt. Amanullah Saheb, Qutub Shahi Mosque etc. and the inam lands attached to it at Hameedullah Nagar, Shamshabad Ranga Reddy District were in existence since time immemorial. The said Waqf Institution has also been notified in A.P. Gazette dated 09.02.1989 and name of one Mehar Ali was wrongly printed as Mutawalli. In fact, the said Mehar Ali is resident of Hyderabad and died in the year 1975 itself.

(b) The petitioner’s ancestors were hereditary Mutawalli and Inamdars of the subject Waqf and its attached properties since time immemorial. The subject Waqf Institution and its attached properties were managed and look after by the petitioner’s ancestors and thereafter the petitioner is looking after the same. As such the subject Institution and its attached properties are in petitioner’s control and capacity as Hereditary mutawalli and Inamdar. All the Revenue records relating to the said Waqf institute and the subject property stand in the name of the petitioner’s ancestors thereafter in the name of the petitioner and the concerned pattadar Pass Book and title Deed of the same are in the name of the petitioner and his brothers as Inamdars.

(c) The petitioner’s ancestors used to perform the service as Mutawalli to the mosque and lead the prayer and religious service i.e. Qateeb Service, and also Inamdars of the attached property of the subject mosque. During the regime of the then Ruler H.E.H. Nizam, then ecclesiastical Department of Umoor-e-Mazhabi used to pay the remuneration to the petitioner’s ancestors till the grant is re-entrusted in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather. Subsequent to the demisal of the petitioner’s grandfather, petitioner’s father became hereditary Mutawalli and Inamdar.

(d) Accordingly, after the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner became the Mutawalli and Inanmdar and rendering the services of Khitabat and Imamat since last 40 years uninterruptedly. Since past 10 years, the petitioner submitted various representations dated 27.11.2020, 14.02.2021, 25.02.2021 16.06.2022, 27.11.2022, 03.11.2022, 31.10.2022 to the 2nd Respondent Board to incorporate the petitioner’s name as Hereditary Mutawalli and record the same U/s 42 of the Waqf Act 1995 but the 2nd Respondent did not take any necessary action.

(e) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner file W.P. No. 5878/2021 challenging the inaction of the 2nd Respondent and this court passed orders dated 17.03.2020 directing the 2nd Respondent to pass appropriate order within three (03) months from the date of receipt of th