Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ, RENUKA YARA, J
Mohammed Abdul Sattar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.
Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government Pleader for B.C.Welfare, Social Welfare and Minority Welfare Department, for respondent No.1; Sri Mohd. Ismail, learned counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri Mohd. Asif Amjad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assailed the order dated 21.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.20048 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought by the appellant (writ petitioner) and relegated the appellant to avail the remedy before the Waqf Tribunal. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed as Mutawalli and was never removed by any express order in exercise of power under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, 1995. In absence thereof, the respondents had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to appoint a Committee by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 26.06.2023. By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P.
The Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to Waqf properties, and High Courts should not entertain such matters directly.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the applicability of Section 83(2) of The Waqf Act, 1995 in determining the maintainability of the writ petiti....
The Waqf Board holds original jurisdiction over mutawalli appointments, while the Tribunal's role is appellate, as established by the Waqf Act.
The jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to Wakf properties resides exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, and the High Court cannot entertain such matters.
The Waqf Board has jurisdiction over Mutawalliship disputes, while the Waqf Tribunal serves as an adjudicating authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers and limitations of the Waqf Tribunal under the Waqf Act, 1995, and the entitlement of male lineal descendants to m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of clear guidelines for the appointment of Mutawalli, leading to biased and arbitrary decisions by the Wakf Board, and the intervention of....
Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when a Waqf Tribunal is functioning; violations should be addressed through the established statutory remedies.
(1) Suit for permanent injunction in respect of Waqf property is maintainable before Waqf Tribunal.(2) Waqf Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have same powers as may be exercised....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
