SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J., G.M. Mohiuddin, J.
Syed Zainul Abideen Hussaini Quardi and others - Appellants
Versus
Syed Mohammed Mohiuddin Quardi and others. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.9 of 2026
Decided On : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Vedula Chitralekha
For the Respondent: Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, learned Sri Ananthula Ravi, learned Government Pleader, Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel

Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised when statutory remedies under the Waqf Act are available, affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal over disputes concerning Waqf properties.

Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 63 and Section 83 - Writ Appeal against Single Judge's order setting aside proceedings of Waqf Board regarding appointment of Towliath Committee - The appointment was made ignoring the preferential claim outlined in a Compromise Deed - Writ Petition was deemed non-maintainable due to availability of an alternative statutory remedy - The Tribunal is the proper forum to resolve disputes related to Waqf properties. (Paras 1, 11, 24, 30)

(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - High Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction if a complete statutory remedy exists, unless fundamental rights are violated or jurisdictional errors are evident - The specifics of legal definition of heirs under Mohammedan law were not determinable in High Court's writ jurisdiction. (Paras 20, 27, 28)

(C) Jurisdictional Errors - The decision made by Waqf Tribunal regarding family compromise and the legal heirs can only be determined and adjudicated within the statutory framework of the Tribunal as per Section 83. (Paras 26, 29)

Facts of the case:
The Waqf Board's proceedings on appointing a maternal grandson as President of the Towliath Committee were challenged by his sibling claiming preferential status as a son according to the compromise terms. The appointment was made despite two previous judicial mandates requiring adherence to family succession norms.

Findings of Court:
High Court held the writ petition not maintainable due to the explicit jurisdictional framework outlined in the Waqf Act and the necessity to pursue statutory remedies.

Issues: Court addressed maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in light of Section 83 of the Waqf Act and the interpretation of the compromise terms regarding succession.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court reasoned that jurisdictional issues must be resolved within the broader context of Waqf Act remedies rather than in the writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the Tribunal's explicit role in resolving such disputes.

Result: Writ Appeal allowed; order of Single Judge set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of the dargah conflict and succession. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments presented by appellants regarding maintainability. (Para 11)
3. court's observations on the maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 12 , 18)
4. respondent arguments supporting the learned single judge. (Para 14 , 15)
5. legal analysis and findings on the exclusivity of the tribunal's jurisdiction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 29)
6. conclusion on the substantive merits of claim left open. (Para 30 , 31)
7. conclusion to allow appeal and outline of orders. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT :

The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3148 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the proceedings dated 18.12.2024 issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board (for short “the Board”) appointing the appellants (respondent Nos.3 to 9 in the Writ Petition) as President and Members of the Towliath Committee of Dargah Hazrath Imam Ali Shah Quadri (R.H.), Balapur, and further directed the Board to reconstitute the said Committee considering the claim of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) for the post of President with preferential status.

2. For the sake of clarity and brevity, the parties are hereafter referred to as they were arrayed in the Writ Petition.

Factual background (succinctly stated)

3. Dargah Hazrath Imam Ali Shah Quadri, Balapur (for short ‘the Balapur Dargah’) is a notified Waqf institution bearing Serial No.2958, as published in the Gazette dated 09.02.1989. Upon the demise of the original Mutawalli, disputes arose regarding succession to the office of Mutawalli. In order to resolve the said disputes, a Family Compromise dated 25.02.1960 (for short ‘the Compromise Deed’) was recorded in Case No.13/2 of 1959.

4. The key terms of the Compromise Deed were:

i. A Towliath (Management) Committee shall be constituted.

ii. Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri (father of the Writ Petitioner and grandfather of respondent No.3) shall be the President.

iii. In case of any eventuality concerning the President, his legal heirs or nominee would succeed him.

5. Subsequent disputes between the parties culminated in further litigation. A Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment in W.A.No.23 of 1992, directed the constitution of a fresh Towliath Committee strictly in accordance with the Compromise Deed, while continuing Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri as the Chairman thereof. In compliance with the said directions, the Waqf Board constituted a five-member Towliath Committee vide proceedings dated 03.04.1993.

6. Upon the demise of Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, his 2nd son, Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri, who is the brother of the writ petitioner, was appointed as Mutawalli/President of the Balapur Dargah through Gazette Notifications dated 20.01.2005 and 08.02.2007. The said appointment made under Section 63 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’), was assailed before the Waqf Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). However, the challenge was dismissed and the appointment was upheld by the order dated16.09.2006 in O.A.No.4 of 2005.

7. Subsequently, the Board appointed Syed Sultan Mohiuddin Quadri as Mutawalli under Section 42 of the Act vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012. The said appointment was assailed in O.A.No.45 of 2016 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 01.10.2021, allowed the O.A, set aside the impugned appointment, and issued elaborate directions for reconstitution of the Towliath Committee in strict conformity with the Compromise Deed and the proceedings dated 03.04.1993. The Tribunal categorically held that the office of President shall be filled from the first branch, namely the branch of Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, and that the remaining members of the committee shall be drawn from each of the five branches of the family.

8. The order of the Tribunal was challenged in C.R.P.No.1608 of 2021. The said C.R.P. was dispo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top